[acresm22]

I read thru this thread for the first time last night...couldn't help but think of a Parade cartoon from a few weeks ago. Husband and wife are walking out of a movie theater, and the wife says: "That was the stupidest movie ever. Only an idiot would like it. What did you think?"

I cut it out and pinned it to the wall above my wife's desk ; - )

[woodsyi]

Go shovel a couple of tons of snow in howling winds (I had my ski goggles on) before you look to upgrade.

My speakers sounded great once I got inside as the heat from the tubes in my system thawed my face and several drams of single malt Scotch put fire in my belly. 

This kind of general advice is silly as everyone has different system.  There are as many good speakers just waiting for the right source or amp as there are sources and amps waiting for the right speakers to come alive in synergy for the owners.  I would say you have to evaluate everything and determine where the "weakest" link is.

[Tyson]

If we take the premise that perfect reproduction of the initial audio event is impossible, which has been mentioned several times in this thread, then we are left with the choice of "which tradeoff can I live with"?  For some, they want a razor sharp, analytical, drier sound that solid state equipment can provide.  For others, they want a less upfront, but more relaxed sound that tubes can provide.  Same with speakers, every speaker is different, and none of them is perfect.  So, you pick your preference.

My point is that people who are talking about "accuracy" are talking out of their @ss, there is no such thing as perfectly accurate.  And in the absence of perfect accuracy (or even it's reasonable facsimile), all you are left with is choosing based on your own preferences.

OK, you can all go back to talking about cables, in this supposed speaker thread.

[toobluvr]

Anytime anyone starts talking about "accuracy", I immediately switch off.

It's all about what sounds good and rivets your arse to the seat.  It's the sound that makes you late for work the next day.  And you know it when you hear it.  I aim to maximize enjoyment.  If the gear melts away as I am swept away and accuracy suffers in the process, I couldn't care less.  If it pleases me that's all that matters.  Everything else is just a theoretical discussion.

[Wind Chaser]

My point is that people who are talking about "accuracy" are talking out of their @ss...

Perhaps some people have a different idea than you do as to what constitutes accuracy??   If you were a professional recording engineer, I think you'd laugh at the simplicity of your above statement. 

[cujobob]

Accuracy ...input = output?

[Niteshade]

I find this very unfortunate (regarding quote down below). I intellectually understand it but do not personally understand it since nothing like this has been an issue with me.

Folks on here provide all sorts of information! Much of it is debunking snake oil crap that's sold. This thread, in fact was supposed to bring up an issue people have: Exchanging amps & preamps, etc,etc... when the speakers were never accessed for a possible issue.

The question: "If I go from tube to solid state or visa-versa, or a hybrid system, etc... will it help me?" Can't be readily answered until speaker and room issues are looked into first. It is important to become very intimate with your speakers and room in terms of their abilities/inabilities.

I was listening to a pair of decent 7" wide bandwidth speakers augmented with cellular lens horn tweeters.  Some things were done VERY WELL, while much of my music sounded awful. I believe a powered sub would have fixed the 'awful' part, but I don't like powered subs much.

If the speakers played music that was designed within their bandwidth (Approx. 80hz to 18k) they sounded spectacular! If the music was a wider bandwidth...it was terrible. Too much info was lost. Nat King Cole & many Beatles tunes sounded superb. Piano was very good too.

What I am getting at is this: I learned the speaker's limitations. The toe-in, height and listening position were perfect. There are things those speakers can't and won't do. Different amps, preamps, etc... will change things a little but not allot.

They also exist cause many in this hobby are insecure and anxiety ridden, and desperately wanna believe that the next doo-dad and bit of snake oil will take them to the promised land.  And mfrs / sellers take advantage of this.

Hey....I'm a free market capitalist, so I don't really blame the folks on the sell side.  I blame the idiots that pay the insane prices and therefore support and encourage the smoke and mirrors industry.

[DaveC113]

I believe a powered sub would have fixed the 'awful' part, but I don't like powered subs much.

Unpowered subs, on the other hand add absolutely no distortion, which is a distinct advantage over the powered variety. The sound is very clear and precise. 

[Russell Dawkins]

Unpowered subs, on the other hand add absolutely no distortion, which is a distinct advantage over the powered variety. The sound is very clear and precise. 

you are joking - am I right?

[doug s.]

quality powered subs can be used to good effect, but i still believe they will improve the total sonic package better if used w/an outboard x-over; yust set their internal x-over setting at the max position, (usually ~150-250hz), so it is taken out of the equation.  crossing your mains at 60-80hz almost always improves the sound of them, as they and their amp(s) do much better not seeing those bottom freqeuncies.

doug s.

[DaveC113]

you are joking - am I right?

Yes.

If you do not power your sub, I promise it will be clean and distortion-free. 

[Russell Dawkins]

Yes.

If you do not power your sub, I promise it will be clean and distortion-free. 

Good one! 

I, of course, thought you were talking passive subs! I'm a little slower than usual today - too many things on the go.

[JohnR]

Perhaps some people have a different idea than you do as to what constitutes accuracy??   If you were a professional recording engineer, I think you'd laugh at the simplicity of your above statement.

Hi - I apologize that I haven't actually read this whole thread... however I would like to relate a recent gathering I attended where a recording engineer arranged a session in which he recorded a singer and guitarist in a studio with a small number of audio enthusiasts in attendance. The recording was done using the Blumleim (mid-side) technique. The eye-opening thing here was... there is no such thing as "accurate." For example, while the engineer was previewing the sound on his Nagra recorder, he moved his position and the coincident mic to obtain what he thought was the best balance of direct and ambient sound. He asked the singer to move back further behind the guitarist according to the nature of the song. He moved the microphone up or down to get the right balance of voice and guitar sound. Then when he was satisfied that he understood the nature of this recording, he asked us (the audience in the studio) to be absolutely quiet and then asked the performers to record the track. Later on in the mixing studio he experimented with the mix of direct-to-ambient audio from the microphones while deciding on the final "mix." He also related stories about other recordings he had done recently where he had used microphones closer to the performers and added additional microphones/tracks to capture the room ambience, which he had then decided upon during final mixdown as to what constituted what felt, to him, to convey the best impression of the performance.

Thanks

JohnR

[jimdgoulding]

Interesting.  Went to a guitar concert in a medium size library room with no microphone and didn't hear all the detail of most recordings of this instrument.  Just the natural sound.  You don't always get that via recordings and is largely due to microphone placement and EQ, I think.

[pardales]

Hi - I apologize that I haven't actually read this whole thread... however I would like to relate a recent gathering I attended where a recording engineer arranged a session in which he recorded a singer and guitarist in a studio with a small number of audio enthusiasts in attendance. The recording was done using the Blumleim (mid-side) technique. The eye-opening thing here was... there is no such thing as "accurate." For example, while the engineer was previewing the sound on his Nagra recorder, he moved his position and the coincident mic to obtain what he thought was the best balance of direct and ambient sound. He asked the singer to move back further behind the guitarist according to the nature of the song. He moved the microphone up or down to get the right balance of voice and guitar sound. Then when he was satisfied that he understood the nature of this recording, he asked us (the audience in the studio) to be absolutely quiet and then asked the performers to record the track. Later on in the mixing studio he experimented with the mix of direct-to-ambient audio from the microphones while deciding on the final "mix." He also related stories about other recordings he had done recently where he had used microphones closer to the performers and added additional microphones/tracks to capture the room ambience, which he had then decided upon during final mixdown as to what constituted what felt, to him, to convey the best impression of the performance.

Thanks

JohnR

Ahhh......this is a really nice example illustrating why there is no truth in audio.......or in this case, why "accuracy" is a chimera. In the end it is far more about interpretation. Interpretation starting at the recording and involving every piece in the audio chain, including one's ears/mind.

You have to find the interpretation you like and getting back to one of the original purposes of this thread, the speakers are responsible for much of the interpreting in an audio system.

[Russell Dawkins]

If you were to use speakers and acoustic environment identical to that used to monitor the recording, you would at least hear what the engineer intended. If your speakers were identical but the environment merely similar, you'd be close.

The reasoning behind choosing monitors with the flattest response possible and tightly controlled dispersion is that, based on the presumption that most speaker designs are attempting flat response, the target (translation of the sound to the "real world") will be hit more often than if the monitors themselves were also inaccurate.

I chose the monitors I am now using based on their response amplitude accuracy and audibly low distortion. Not only are they revealing of details deep within the mix, but there are revelations to be had in the area of dynamics - for example I noticed for the first time the subtle tremolo caused by the nervousness of the performer on a wind instrument in a recording with which I was well familiar. The bonus is that these function not only as microscopes but are very enjoyable - if only because recordings sound so different from each other.

My point in all this is to refute the "there is no truth" idea as a blanket descriptor. If there is a "point of truth" - a reference point - and there should be to make sense of the process, it is the monitor speakers and their environment. This is the pivot point - the fulcrum - and should be as flat and accurate as possible, then all the creativity that goes into the rest of the process makes more sense.

[Niteshade]

Sound waves:
1. Have to be captured mechanically
2. The pickup sends an electronic signal
3. That signal is amplified and/or recorded
4. The recorded signal is re-amplified via a preamp & amp
5. The re-amplified signal is then distributed to your speakers

The mechanical pickup interface is never going to be accurate nor reiterate what anybody in the audience actually hears: The microphones will have a different perspective than your ears. End of story right there. Add that issue to the accuracy of the microphones, which are not always that accurate.  I 100% agree the original performance cannot be accurately reproduced into your listening room.

But: I actually do not care about the entire process. Those responsible for recording have their job, we have ours. We as consumers are only interested in replicating the recorded sound. The only reference you should be concerned about is how close your system can reproduce what is on the playback medium and not the recording studio. You and I have zero control over mic placements, their room acoustics, etc... No control = I don't care and can't care. It's a done deal.

Plan a system that sounds good to you and you alone. Faithful reproduction only extends to the playback end for us. Not the recording end. I want my system to be able to extract all the information it can from a recording and do it accurately.

[Nuance]

The question: "If I go from tube to solid state or visa-versa, or a hybrid system, etc... will it help me?" Can't be readily answered until speaker and room issues are looked into first. It is important to become very intimate with your speakers and room in terms of their abilities/inabilities.


What I am getting at is this: I learned the speaker's limitations. The toe-in, height and listening position were perfect. There are things those speakers can't and won't do. Different amps, preamps, etc... will change things a little but not allot.

I sniped the above post, but I vote this the most intelligent post in this entire thread, and its also a great summary.  Well stated.

[Nuance]

Sound waves:
1. Have to be captured mechanically
2. The pickup sends an electronic signal
3. That signal is amplified and/or recorded
4. The recorded signal is re-amplified via a preamp & amp
5. The re-amplified signal is then distributed to your speakers

The mechanical pickup interface is never going to be accurate nor reiterate what anybody in the audience actually hears: The microphones will have a different perspective than your ears. End of story right there. Add that issue to the accuracy of the microphones, which are not always that accurate.  I 100% agree the original performance cannot be accurately reproduced into your listening room.

But: I actually do not care about the entire process. Those responsible for recording have their job, we have ours. We as consumers are only interested in replicating the recorded sound. The only reference you should be concerned about is how close your system can reproduce what is on the playback medium and not the recording studio. You and I have zero control over mic placements, their room acoustics, etc... No control = I don't care and can't care. It's a done deal.

Plan a system that sounds good to you and you alone. Faithful reproduction only extends to the playback end for us. Not the recording end. I want my system to be able to extract all the information it can from a recording and do it accurately.

Hmm...that's an interesting, yet plausible way to go about it.  I'll admit, all these years I've been using live sound (orchestral) as my reference.  While that's good, it is nearly impossible to achieve in one's room unless the artist is there and will stay while you tweak/EQ until the live and recorded sound are not discernible in comparison.  So why not attempt to accurately re-created the recording itself?  Problem is, how are we suppose to know what the recording engineers intended us to hear?  Wouldn't that be as hard as using live sound as a reference?

I do like your process, though, and generally agree.  We could "measure" and go about things that way, but measurements don't tell us everything, nor does the human ear pick up sound waves in the same way (ie, microphones can pick things up our ears cannot). 

[Russell Dawkins]

Sound waves:
1. Have to be captured mechanically
2. The pickup sends an electronic signal
3. That signal is amplified and/or recorded
4. The recorded signal is re-amplified via a preamp & amp
5. The re-amplified signal is then distributed to your speakers

The mechanical pickup interface is never going to be accurate nor reiterate what anybody in the audience actually hears: The microphones will have a different perspective than your ears. End of story right there. Add that issue to the accuracy of the microphones, which are not always that accurate.  I 100% agree the original performance cannot be accurately reproduced into your listening room.

But: I actually do not care about the entire process. Those responsible for recording have their job, we have ours. We as consumers are only interested in replicating the recorded sound. The only reference you should be concerned about is how close your system can reproduce what is on the playback medium and not the recording studio. You and I have zero control over mic placements, their room acoustics, etc... No control = I don't care and can't care. It's a done deal.

Plan a system that sounds good to you and you alone. Faithful reproduction only extends to the playback end for us. Not the recording end. I want my system to be able to extract all the information it can from a recording and do it accurately.

I don't think you have read my post carefully enough. You have missed my entire basic point, or I am not being clear enough.
Down to the word "But" you are restating what should be obvious. This is not revelation. The irrationality, frankly, has worn me down.

At least you are making amplifiers and not speakers, so the ramifications of your approach are minimized.

I'll go back to lurking on this one.