|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.154.55.230
In Reply to: RE: Stereo vs. multichannel: what are your thoughts on this statement (inside). posted by Analog Scott on June 27, 2010 at 06:33:53
"How do *you* measure "more accurate?" And how do *you* measure "more musical?" the answer to these questions really sets aprameters of any further discussion and the answers will not be the same for all audiophiles. I think the quest for "accuracy" is a bit of an open can of worms. Accuracy has no meaning without a reference and in audio the choice of reference is..well, let's say an interesting one."
-- In the case of transducers you measure and compare the frequency response of what is coming out of the transducer to the signal going into it. By necessity this requires measuring close, in an anechoic chamber. While I fully recognize the inherent weaknesses -- you can't measure stereo, or imaging this way, we don't listen at 1 meter in an anechoic chamber, etc, etc, I'm also aware of my own preferences. There are speaker manufacturers who deliberately color the output, the most common examples being the mid-bass hump to create "deep bass" in small speakers, and the upper midrange air or sizzle, to create the illusion of detail. Then there are those manufacturers, usually very conservative, often working in the pro market, who endeavor to produce speakers that put out an accurate reflection of the signal that is sent in. They never get it quite right. Transducers are the weak link and always have been. But I found, many years ago, that I preferred those conservative, some even say boring speakers over the others.
Musical? You can't measure musical in equipment, because "musical" is an audiophile conceit. Music is musical. Equipment is reproductive. Except when it is wrong. :)
P
Follow Ups:
> > "How do *you* measure "more accurate?" And how do *you* measure "more musical?" the answer to these questions really sets aprameters of any further discussion and the answers will not be the same for all audiophiles. I think the quest for "accuracy" is a bit of an open can of worms. Accuracy has no meaning without a reference and in audio the choice of reference is..well, let's say an interesting one."
-- In the case of transducers you measure and compare the frequency response of what is coming out of the transducer to the signal going into it. By necessity this requires measuring close, in an anechoic chamber. While I fully recognize the inherent weaknesses -- you can't measure stereo, or imaging this way, we don't listen at 1 meter in an anechoic chamber, etc, etc, I'm also aware of my own preferences. There are speaker manufacturers who deliberately color the output, the most common examples being the mid-bass hump to create "deep bass" in small speakers, and the upper midrange air or sizzle, to create the illusion of detail. Then there are those manufacturers, usually very conservative, often working in the pro market, who endeavor to produce speakers that put out an accurate reflection of the signal that is sent in. They never get it quite right. Transducers are the weak link and always have been. But I found, many years ago, that I preferred those conservative, some even say boring speakers over the others. > >
I'm sure this would not work for my preferences and goals. One can take a pretty distorted speaker and add some digital EQ and get a pretty flat response from one meter in an anechoic chamber while having something that would sound pretty lousy in practical use.
> > Musical? You can't measure musical in equipment, because "musical" is an audiophile conceit. Music is musical. Equipment is reproductive. Except when it is wrong. :)> >
OK but you did claim a corolation between levels of "accuracy" and "musicality." if you can't measure musicality I'm not sure how you corolate it with measured accuracy.
"I'm sure this would not work for my preferences and goals. One can take a pretty distorted speaker and add some digital EQ and get a pretty flat response from one meter in an anechoic chamber while having something that would sound pretty lousy in practical use."
I'm not sure you can get a pretty flat response from a pretty distorted speaker, in fact I suspect you can't, but in any case, that low distortion is a goal, along with a relatively uncolored response, is a given. I'm not going for a noisy uncolored speaker (I think that might be an oxymoron), I'm going for the cleanest, least-colored speaker possible. And mind you, I understand that this is a very lofty goal, but usually, the closer you get, the better I like the results. YMMV.
P
Thank you for the clarification. I got the impression that it was only about frequency response when there are many other ways a speaker can distort.
For me, it's all about chasing an apparent purity in acoustic instruments and voices, and most of that is in the midrange, which is why I'm satisfied with relatively small speakers and no sub. And it's about imaging, which is where I depart from Dr. Olive. I'm a long-time headphone listener, and as far as balance, purity and coherency are concerned, it is very difficult for any speaker system, in any room, to equal a reference headphone set up. But they simply cannot image like stereo speakers can. And I almost never listen to music as background, so imaging is most of my reason to own speakers.
P
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: