|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
32.212.76.154
In Reply to: RE: Regardless if its pseudo science or beauty posted by A.Wayne on October 25, 2015 at 13:34:36
40% or 50% is still a lot better than most systems (including some very expensive ones). We really need a paradigm shift to go the rest of the way -- wave field synthesis or crosstalk cancellation/HRTF compensation with head tracking -- or just headphone with HRTF compesnation and head tracking - and record producers who care about realism.
Still, you can achieve some pretty remarkable and more to the point musically delightful results with the flawed two-channel systems we have, if you choose equipment wisely. You do need those big speakers, but they don't have to be SOTA to be surprisingly realistic. Indeed, I've found that the quality of recordings is typically the limiting factor when it comes to realism. So many suffer from compression, distortion on peaks, screechy violin syndrome, instruments out of balance or even spotlighted by unmusical idiots, a multimiked stereo image that's the soundstage equivalent of scrambled eggs, etc. And what with the loudness wars, the situation in popular music is even worse than classical.
Interestingly, I've fund that non-audiophiles do respond to that realism and can be quite adept at identifying it if they're familiar with the sound of live acoustical music.
Follow Ups:
"You do need those big speakers, but they don't have to be SOTA to be surprisingly realistic."
Is it the size of the speaker or size of the musical group that matters most when it comes to a convincing performance in your listening room? It's much easier to produce a realistic recording of a small chamber group performing a Bach violin concerto than a one-hundred piece symphony performing Mahler, for all the obvious reasons, regardless of how large your speakers are.
Is it the size of the speaker or size of the musical group that matters most when it comes to a convincing performance in your listening room? It's much easier to produce a realistic recording of a small chamber group performing a Bach violin concerto than a one-hundred piece symphony performing Mahler, for all the obvious reasons, regardless of how large your speakers are. - regmacAgree, but a large SOTA speaker will still do everything better in the right room vs small , but i do understand why most feel, a small speaker( monitor) wont give up much to , or captures 85-90% of the music vs a larger version, this is because most large speakers are not really SOTA vs their mini equivalent, yes they have less distortion in the bass and because of this ability to reach into the low frequencies of all recordings, they pressurize the room in a different manner, but they all have the same dynamic limitations and compression from 1K up because they are sprouting the same single point source tweeter, the tweeter is the conductor, dynamic compression will be reached at the same point.
Listen to any large line-source or multiple point source type speakers, the difference is immediately apparent on choral or large symphony music, really big horns make it happen also..
Find it hilarious, to see Audiophiles paying 6 figures for a single point source speaker with such limitations and thinking Sota.
They are not ..
Regards
Edits: 10/29/15 10/29/15
I think it's both, actually. As you say, it's easier to reproduce a small ensemble. And all other things being equal, size can confer many advantages on speakers -- better bass response, lower distortion and higher output, more realistic imaging. (It can also have some disadvantages, e.g., less consistent polar response in dynamics.) And while dynamics have improved radically over the years, the most realistic speakers I've heard for conventional two-channel stereo are planar dipoles, which have to be big by nature.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: