|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
211.27.170.92
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.
Follow Ups:
Actually I think his point and mine is that we agree with you that it is nto that we don't want it or think it matters but that it is getting most ALL of the buzzword talk for the last 7-8 years and the other aspects are being completely ignored -- like his friend who said he only cares about the soundstage or the amp maker saying you'll get a stage from this to this like their talking penis enhancements.Soundstaging and imaging are important in the sense that if the disc has a violin center left and a cello center right andtrumpet in the center then these should be where they're supposed to be. When I listen to me set-up I enjoy listening to say Miles Davis and being able to palpably fee and hear where each musician is. But if the sax is harder to the left by a foot than another speaker presents it how the hell am i going to be sure which is absolutely difinively the correct imaging - a big stage is not necessarily the RIGHT stage.
For instance one of my favorite speakers and one I touted for a long time in the reference 3a MM De Capo has a huge stage front to back -- but at the same time it created that front to back stage on every recording. It's still very good and everything but with another speaker I ended up buying back then I noticed on 3-4 recordings the speaker presented a very up-front stage one more balance and on the Loreena McKennit track which has a procession beyond the wall - this speaker sounded much like the De Capo. The difference is that this speaker adjusted to all the recording in a readably noticeable way while the De Capo did not - it had the distanced sound on everything. It's no knock on the De Capo because it is highly involving and has scale etc. But I like the De Capo for a bunch of these other things and so when people say they love it for the huge soundstage I think well ok but for me it's not reproducing what's on the disc but giving you the De Capo Soundstage whether it's on the disc or not. Lucky for the De Capo that it creates an inviting one most of the time.
I guess I would rather hear speakers that do all of those other things better than they're doing them. Not to pick on individual speakers because I like some from this company but the Totem Arro may image and soundstage great but it sounds boom and sizzly, lacks a cohesive sound and midrange richness. I'm hearing something highly off-putting tonally - imaging and soundstage champs they may very well be. It just boggles my mind that there are so many rave reviewed speakers that can;t even do sarah mcLachlan's voice plausibly while sitting at a piano. One voice, one piano and probably 90% of the speakers I have heard are hopelessly out to lunch trying to either let alone both. That would be fine if they could at least POUND for rock music like Motely Crue but most sure as heck don't have the pulse for that sort of thing.
But hey nothing is going to "perfect." Buy the illusion that fools you the most.
I'm not certain that Borden and I agree on a major point, and I'm not certain that you and I agree on that point.We may agree that other things are more important than the soundstaging/imaging, but I suspect I give it a higher importance than you do, and definitely higher than Borden ranks it.
I simply would not accept a stereo or multichannel speaker system that did not do well on this parameter. It's not the first thing I would listen for, but if the first speakers I came across that did tonal fidelity and dynamics well enough to satisfy me did not present soundstaging and imaging well enough to satisfy me, I would simply keep looking. If I was choosing between 2 speaker systems that I regarded as equal on the other things I regarded as important, I would pick the one that did soundstaging and imaging best. I might even trade of a little performance elsewhere for a bit extra performance here, though not to the point of accepting less than a high standard elsewhere. If you're going to have a system with 2 or more channels there is no reason in my mind to accept a system that doesn't do this well. It's an inescapable part of multichannel sound so why would you want speakers that can't deliver it?
I'm quite happy to accept that some people don't want or appreciate that particular aspect, or don't think it is essential - we can find people who feel that way about any aspect of the sound at all and that's OK because it is a legitimate personal preference. We don't all listen in the same way or for the same things. BUT, and it's a big but, if you don't want to have soundstaging and imaging, there is a simpler and better way to avoid it than assembling what is essentially a crippled system with two or more channels, and that is to assemble a top notch mono system. That should give you better results.
I also have difficulties with the implicit assumption that many seem to make in this discussion which recurs regularly here, that if soundstaging and imaging are important to you, you're listening to and for that rather than the music. Some people may but that doesn't mean that all do, nor does it mean that there is no advantage offered to musical enjoyment by soundstaging and imaging. I listen mostly to jazz and small group music and I derive a lot of my enjoyment on much of this music from my appreciation of what each individual performer is bringing to the music as a whole. I find the spatial separation that a soundstage and imaging provides helps me to hear those individual contributions more clearly, and to focus on the particular one which interests me most at a particular moment. In other words, it facilitates my enjoyment of the sort of music I listen to, and I think it does the same thing for many other listeners. We don't concentrate on the soundstage or imaging. We're listening to a particular part within the music and the spatial separation of different performers makes that a little less difficult to do, so we hear a little bit more and enjoy the music more as a result.
Not everyone listens to music that way, and not all music encourages listening in that way, so it definitely isn't going to be important to everyone, but it is important to some people and it is important to many of those people for quite sound and valid musical reasons.
I could get by with a top notch mono system, and I could get a lot of musical enjoyment from such a system. In fact, the first few times I heard records played on a system that convinced me that owning a decent sound system could actually be a good thing, the system was mono and I still have extremely strong and fond memories of that system some 40 years later. But I don't have to get by on that and my musical tastes have also changed over that 40 year period - back then I was struggling to learn classical guitar and was interested more in listening to solo performances than to ensemble work. I think stereo does a better job with ensemble music and I currently prefer a system that does stereo well. More channels may do an even better job but the recordings aren't available and I don't have a room that would allow a good surround system setup so I stick with stereo, but that means that I want stereo done as well as I can get it done and soundstaging/imaging is critical to that.
I can't disagree but from my experience it has been far far easier to find speakers that image and soundstage well (in that I have yet to hear speakers (ones that are considered to be "good") do this incredibaly badly or even less than good - than it is to find speakers that don't have remotely credible dynamics timbre and tonal accuracy etc.I would say less than 5% of all the speakers(that are deemed in the press and on forums) I have heard in my life provide good dynamics, timbral accuracy, tonal credibility (not sounding etchy or having the tweeter give itself aways, sounding AS ONE not hearing the drivers independant of each other etc.
And conversely probably 95% of all those speakers Image and soundstage well - at least within a flea's(can't spell nat??:-) eyelash of each other and most all do it more than credibly if you spend some time positioning the speakers that suit them.
I suppose the difference is that I just EXPECT that a speaker will image and soundstage well because I rarely if ever come across speakers that are hideous in this regard. Though I have heard some speakers seem to artificially create a center image where the singer is actually or should be off center.
I suppose if you have come across speakers that do it very badly then it would be important but my experience has not found a whole lot that do it badly - if I did then i may put a premium on having it done more right.
You may be right on most speakers imaging better than they do tonal fidelity and some other things, but then I tend not to hear particulary good imaging in speakers in showrooms. At least here in Australia, good speaker setup in showrooms seems to be rare. I don't think I've ever heard a showroom setup do a brilliant job on soundstage or on imaging - they tend to do better than most people do in their homes but then what most people do in their homes seems to fail to deliver any sort of soundstage or imaging at all.What I have always done seems to have been to select on the other things that are important to me and then rely on good setup and a bit of patient work at home to get them imaging well, and always considerably better than I ever heard the speakers do in a showroom.
Agreed -- speaker positioning is the key and you will get most speaker soundstaging and imaging well pretty much no matter what speaker you purchase so long as it is considered a half ways decent loudspeaker. Sure maybe the Cerwin Vega D9 you are not going to get to pinpoint image but then again who knows until someone bothers to try.This is why it puzzles me that press goes on endlessly about these two issues which is really one issue when your room is going to be different anyway and so will your positioning (and this always will shift the speaker's sound in this regard). I have heard the AN E about 5 feet apart firing directly straight ahead they have a wonky sound when it comes to imaging - you have to sit in a vice to not have everythiong shift with your seating position. At home in the proper corner placement 12 or so feet apart with the required toe in and boom everything is presented in their locations and you can sit pretty much anywhere in the room and get it.
Since most people are auditioning at showrooms with the "hopes" the dealer has both a good room and bothered to position them carefully then chances are when people say speaker X has poor imaging I always think BS - because if you spent the time with the speaker to set it up chances are staggerringly high that they will present the stage you're wanting.
Interestingly and to those disbelievers as there are many - amplifiers do in fact havce a say in this as well. With the Paradigm Studio 100V2 I bought a Sugden A48b amplifier based on the audition. I compared it directly against a MF A300. The latter amp created a bigger stage right to left and more AIR while the Sugden was a little softer smaller and even veiled (describes as a valve-like presentation - it also sounded deeper in bass with more weight and smoother in the midrange. But the point is that soundstage (and the speakers were not moved) different substantially.
This also occurred with a listening shootout at another audiophiles house nearby - He had AN K/Spe and Gershman Acoustics X1-Sub1 running and we switched out several amps. His Big Oddysey mono blocks versus a Sim Audio Celeste was startling in this regard with the Oddysey sounding big and wide the Celeste small and heavey (not to my liking at all) and the MF power amp was punded by the Sonic Impact $20.00 Class T digital amp (at least driving the K's).
I have heard many speakers that claim great imaging in press and I have heard them at showrooms which "seem" to have been set-up well and I listen and am often unimpressed. The speaker manual will say 3-4 feet from a back wall and away from side walls and X distance apart and the dealer has done all that. I listen and hear well yes the voice is in the middle but I hear sound from the speaker's tweeter (ie I hear the tweeter) or the space from the singer in the center to the actual left and right speaker forms a gap where there is nothing and then sound from the speaker again - this from major Stereophile beloved slim line speakers with mmetal tweeters.
One reason I tend to not talk about imaging is because most of the so called good ones to me tend not to do it very well and why I try and listen in at least two different dealers or two different rooms. I figure that most likely this will be able to be fixed at home largely or the magazines are deliberately touting lousy imaging speakers as being great so that the buyer in 2 years will look to upgrade and of course by some more Stereophile magazines to get more bad advice -- but nah a magazine would not deliberately do that to get people to buy more magazines now would they?
And also how come this thread started out with the subject "Yet again the buzzword to help poor speakers ..." and now we've got the comment "…or the magazines are deliberately touting lousy imaging speakers as being great so that the buyer in 2 years will look to upgrade and of course by some more Stereophile magazines to get more bad advice -- but nah a magazine would not deliberately do that to get people to buy more magazines now would they?"It's a big jump from imaging being the buzzword to help poor speakers to magazines pushing speakers that image badly.
And I, for one, don't think that Stereophile, or any magazine for that matter, goes out of it's way to give bad advice, and I definitely don't think it behaves unscrupulously to get people to buy more copies.
Pick a component, any component, and not everyone agrees on how good or bad it is. Put it in a pile of different systems and you will expect to hear different things. Let a pile of different people listen and expect to hear them say they heard different things, even when they're listening to exactly the same system in the same room. Maybe not big differences in every case but definitely differences.
Is there any reason to believe that any of Stereophile's reviewers, or any particular one of most reviewers, fails to accurately report their opinion of what they heard and thought when they review a component? What makes them liars out to deceive and give bad advice, or at the very least incompetent and unskilled listeners, when they report something that you don't agree with? Why is it more likely that it has to be something other than an honest difference in opinion and listening experience rather than just that? Why are the reviewers always wrong and their critics always right?
And even if the reviewer is wrong on occasion, why should that be automatically put down to something other than an honest mistake when we all make honest mistakes? Why should reviewers be any less fallible than the rest of us?
As far as the accuracy of Stereophile's reviews go, the only products I own that they've reviewed are my speakers - a favourable but wishy washy Sam Tellig review which I think didn't do them credit but I often have differences with Sam's views, and my Arcam FMJ CD33 CDP which was reviewed by both JA - the main review - and Art Dudley who compared it to a Naim that he preferred. I find myself in close agreement with JA and, for what it's worth, the dealer I bought it from believes that about 50% of people prefer the Arcam to the Naim and the other 50% prefer the Naim to the Arcam. Why should I assume that Art Dudley did anything other than honestly report what he heard and felt simply because he and I have different opinions and prefer different products?
Frankly, there's often a discrepancy in the opinion of different Stereophile reviewers on the same product and the magazine makes no effort to hide that fact. In fact they often go out of their way to make it quite obvious. There's no reason I can see to jump to nasty suspicions just because your opinions don't agree with theirs on some products or because they choose to review gear that you don't like and don't review a lot of the stuff that you do like.
Frankly I got into this thread because I disagreed with the view expressed in your original subject matter and the logic in the article you quoted. There seemed to be a bit of reasonable discussion in the middle and all of a sudden we're back to irrational diatribes against reviewers and Stereophile in particular, and a 180 degree turnaround about what reviewers are doing when they talk about imaging in reviews. Hardly a productive exchange so I'll bail out.
Hi David, man you took the words out of my mouth again! Damn, we have a lot in common when it comes to how we both enjoy listening to music on our systems. I dont look to, or concentrate on sound staging/immaging, BUT if it's on there and its presented through really fine speakers that convey all that spatial information well....that just makes the listening experience that much more enjoyable, it can actually make an so so song more listenable/enjoyable, and make a great song well....:)
Take care.
...David comes up with an incisive, comprehensive post.By the way, I agree. While soundstaging certainly isn't the most important aspect of listening to recorded music, you're right - it SHOULD be there.
Corner placement will obviously blur soundstaging abilities (while helping out other aspects). If the new A.N.s are anything like my 'ole Snells and Bostons, they dEfInItElY need the corners. I would easily sacrifice aural tricks for tonality, though.
In the end, once again, you're correct... you should get both.
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: