Speaker Asylum General speaker questions for audio and home theater.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Speaker Asylum ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Why the Borden article is useless…

Posted by David Aiken (A) on October 12, 2005 at 21:27:47

In Reply to: Yet again the buzzword to help poor speakers ... posted by RGA on October 12, 2005 at 12:17:00:

One of the strengths of science is that it is logical, and part of that logicality is that the conclusion reached is guaranteed by the data. That means, among other things, that the data does not allow any other conclusion to be reached.

And there are rules for how conclusions are logically drawn from premises.

This article simply fails the test. Let's look at it logically. Borden basically states that imaging can be ignored because:

1- many live concerts have minimal soundstaging and "Based on these observations, it appears that the enjoyment of music is not dependent on soundstaging and imaging."

2- one rarely focuses on soundstaging when listening to live music therefore "One need not focus on soundstaging and imaging, or even be particularly aware of their existence, to enjoy music."

3- the soundstaging on many recordings is artificial

4- Focusing on soundstaging is an analytical endeavor which distracts from the true essence of music.

Admittedly he indicates in his conclusions that he enjoys a deep soundstage and that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with soundstaging/imaging but it doesn't rate anywhere near as highly for him as tonal and dynamic fidelity.

I have no problem with Borden's conclusion apart from the fact that I think it doesn't give quite enough importance to the issue of imaging, but I do agree that there are other things which definitely need to be right and that good imaging on it's own won't make a good speaker.

It's the arguments he uses to reach his conclusion that simply don't work. Taking them in order:

1 - many live concerts have minimal soundstaging. Actually, many have none. If the concert has sound reinforcement everyone hears a mono signal through the speakers - no soundstaging at all. And if it isn't reinforced and you're in a concert hall, you're probably far enough back so that the reflected sound reaching your ears is so close in level to the level of the direct sound that you won't be able to determine the source location of anything by sound. Locating things by sound requires a strong direct sound unconfused by reflected sound. You only get that in the near field or close to the near field. If you had the musicians in your living room (makes it a small group exercise) you would be able to do it, but not in a concert hall.

So, is that a reason not to worry about it? No. The fact that you don't get soundstaging in many live performances doesn't mean that you don't get it in all, and why would you want to miss out on it in those situations where you can get it naturally. The fact that you don't get it in many cases doesn't show that it doesn't add something to those occasions when you do get it.

2- one rarely focuses on soundstaging when listening to live music therefore "One need not focus on soundstaging and imaging, or even be particularly aware of their existence, to enjoy music."

I wonder whether this is really a different point than the first one since you can't focus on something that isn't there, but it's worth noting that the fact that we don't focus on it in many cases with live music doesn't prove that we don't focus on it in some cases. It also doesn't prove that we have to 'focus on it' to enjoy it when it is naturally present in live music or that enjoying it when it is there with a live performance detracts from our enjoyment of the music in any way. Why shouldn't we just notice it quite naturally at times, just like we notice other aspects of the live sound, and enjoy it and everything else we hear as part of the live music experience? This point is definitely not a reason for tossing anything away.

3- the soundstaging on many recordings is artificial.

Agreed, but what about those recordings, and there are more than a few, where it isn't artificial? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why give up the appreciation of the good examples just because many/most recordings aren't good on this point?

4- Focusing on soundstaging is an analytical endeavor which distracts from the true essence of music.

Who says you have to focus on it when it's done well? Sure, you may focus on it as one thing that a speaker does when you're choosing a speaker, just like you focus on tonal fidelity and dynamic response and everything else we're interested in, but how many people really do continue to focus on those things rather than enjoying the music once they have things set up properly in their systems? We play around with speaker placement to get tonal fidelity right because of the effect of proximity to walls/corners on bass response, and reflections on response even up into the high frequency domain but no one calls that 'focussing' or suggests that it's pointless to get that right, or argues that we shouldn't appreciate tonal fidelity when we're listening to music, so why should things be any different with any other aspect of playback performance including soundstaging and imaging?

Once again, there's no reason here to ignore it or downplay it.

As for the counterargument, I think it simply comes down to the idea that the speaker should reproduce what's on the actual recording. If that includes a soundstage and imaging, they should be reproduced and reproduced well. I always wonder whether speakers that don't are also failing to reproduce other things wall also.

And, whether we like it or not, a soundstage and imaging are an integral part of any multicahannel recording. Once you get 2 or more channels, it's unavoidable. If they're irrelevant to you, and I have no problem with anyone who claims that's the case since that is, after all, a valid personal preference, the solution is really mono playback rather than speakers which don't do something that they should do in a multi-channel setup. If you're going to go for 2 or more channels, why would you want to go for it in such a way that you don't get everything that you should get from that approach?

And besides, a single speaker playing a mono signal probably actually sounds a little bit better than a pair of stereo speakers playing a mono signal.

Horses for courses. If you don't want soundstaging and imaging, and there's nothing wrong with not wanting them, then go for what you want in the best and most sensible way possible by assembling a high quality mono system. Don't settle for a bad stereo or multi-channel system by getting speakers that don't do everything that they really should do.

David Aiken

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Analog Engineering Associates

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---