|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
199.46.198.230
In Reply to: Re: It has to be subjective when it comes to auditioning speakers, posted by Kal Rubinson on February 22, 2007 at 17:16:07:
Everyone's preconceived expectation of the original event would only be different if one could hear with another's ears. However, for each of us, as I have said before, any personal filtering of ear/brain is a constant for both live and reproduced, so it is not a factor.I understand what you are saying, but I think fortysomething still has a point. Even if two listeners experience the same live event, they are likely to be influenced by and remember different elements of the sound. That will in turn influence what they listen for when evaluating speakers.
The point I was trying to add is that the live event usually cannot be a reference when auditioning speakers based on a recording, because the listener has not experienced the live event. So in most cases, the listener's expectations of what a recording should sound like are based largely on preconceptions and preferences.
To illustrate my argument, consider two concert goers, one who prefers a mid-back hall seat and another who prefers a seat near the front of the audience. Now select a set of orchestral recordings made in different halls with varying perspectives and let both individuals evaluate speakers using those recordings. I argue that the individuals will come to different conclusions, with each individual preferring speakers which, on average, make the set of recordings sound more like their preferred concert hall sound.
Going further, assume one of the individuals prefers dramatic orchestral performances and the other prefers Baroque chamber music. They are likely to listen for different aspects of performance when evaluating speakers and judge them based on different criteria.
Follow Ups:
"Even if two listeners experience the same live event, they are likely to be influenced by and remember different elements of the sound. That will in turn influence what they listen for when evaluating speakers." I agree but that is what I would call a matter of taste or preference and it has nothing to do with the anatomy or physiology of hearing.
nt
Most people simply don't want to pay the prices charged for a more up close perspective at a concert hall. So price often equals preference. As a frequent concert goer I can say that I have found concerts always more enjoyable when in the first 1/3rd of the hall. Of course if the hall is not so big the perspective doesn't change all that much.
Or endless tail-chasing, at least. [BTW, I'm not saying you are leading us there, just that audiophiles who actually operate in the manner you describe are in for a long haul, with much disappointment.]"each individual preferring speakers which, on average, make the set of recordings sound more like their preferred concert hall sound."
Okay. Let's say that a person prefers a mid-hall sound. This individual chooses a speaker that gives him a mid-hall sound. But wait; this speaker will add a mid-hall sound to all recordings. An up-front recording will get a mid-hall sound. A mid-hall recording will have a back-of-the-hall sound. And a Nimbus-like back-of-the-hall recording will sound like--what? An orchestra in the next town?
So the speaker that gives him that mid-hall sound will only sound right to him on a small percentage of recordings--ironically, recordings he would not choose if he had more accurate speakers.
Substitute any loudspeaker parameter you like: tone, imaging, whatever. Same deal. (Except for dynamic range. It's impossible for speakers to create more dynamic range than the signal fed them.)
Now what? As you note, none of us were at the recording session and, in fact, it wouldn't matter if we were. We hear with ears and brains, but the recording was made with mikes, mike preamps, cables, mixing boards, and recording devices--how do they sound? Dunno!
It seems to me that the best we can hope for is a speaker--or anything else for that matter--that is accurate to the recording , not the "absolute" whatever. Up-front recordings sound up-front, mid-hall recordings sound mid-hall, and Nimbus recordings sound like Nimbus recordings. ;-)
The loudspeaker (or whatever) that reveals the differences between these recordings to the greatest degree will be the most accurate to the recording. And will probably deliver the greatest satisfaction over a wide range of recordings.
Okay. Let's say that a person prefers a mid-hall sound. This individual chooses a speaker that gives him a mid-hall sound. But wait; this speaker will add a mid-hall sound to all recordings. An up-front recording will get a mid-hall sound. A mid-hall recording will have a back-of-the-hall sound. And a Nimbus-like back-of-the-hall recording will sound like--what? An orchestra in the next town?No, I think you are also missing my point. I don't assume this person is intentionally trying to select a speaker that imparts a mid-hall sound to all recordings. In fact, I assume this person is trying to find a speaker that he thinks is accurate and uncolored, and selects the speaker which comes closest to his own live reference on the recordings he thinks are most important to get right.
So the speaker that gives him that mid-hall sound will only sound right to him on a small percentage of recordings--ironically, recordings he would not choose if he had more accurate speakers.I assume he is smarter than that. I assume that since he prefers to listen mid-hall, he relies more on recordings which were intended to sound mid-hall, and tries to get those recordings to sound right to his ears. And similarly, I assume the other guy, who likes to sit up front, relies more on closely miked recordings to select speakers that sound right. Let's say they both have good ears and deep pockets and the first guy ends up with speakers that convincingly recreate a mid-hall perspective with the right recordings in his room and the second guy ends up with speakers that convincingly recreate a front row perspective with the right recordings in his room.
Now, what are the chances that they ended up choosing the same speakers? Slim in my opinion. Most likely, the guy who likes a mid-hall seat doesn't care so much for imaging but values hall ambiance, especially if it is enveloping. And he probably also is more concerned with the flow of the music and large scale macrodynamics, but not so much about microdynamics and PRaT. And he's probably more likely to tolerate or prefer a very detailed & revealing speaker because his favorite recordings have a warmer tonal balance and less apparent detail. The other guy, who prefers a front row seat, most likely has different priorities, and selects a different speaker that excels in different aspects of performance.
Now what? As you note, none of us were at the recording session and, in fact, it wouldn't matter if we were. We hear with ears and brains, but the recording was made with mikes, mike preamps, cables, mixing boards, and recording devices--how do they sound? Dunno!Exactly!
It seems to me that the best we can hope for is a speaker--or anything else for that matter--that is accurate to the recording, not the "absolute" whatever.How do we know what is accurate to the recording? In my example, I was assuming that both individuals are trying to select speakers which they think are accurate to the recordings they value the most. But since they can't know what a recording is really supposed to sound like, the best they can do is compare the sound to some preconceived expectation of what it should sound like, which is influenced by preferences, priorities, and experiences that differ from person to person.
The loudspeaker (or whatever) that reveals the differences between these recordings to the greatest degree will be the most accurate to the recording. And will probably deliver the greatest satisfaction over a wide range of recordings.For someone who doesn't have strong listening preferences and enjoys a wide range of recordings, that does seem to be a good way to proceed. However, a speaker that performs reasonably well over a wide variety of recordings may not be optimal for any particular type of recording. And thus, individuals who have stronger preferences or narrower interests may justifiably prefer something else.
for a well-reasoned response. I agree with nearly all of it.Had I had time to refine my thoughts more (instead of the scattershot approach I took!) I would have simplified:
One, reliance on the "absolute" sound is useful in a general sense--I hear it nearly every day--but since we've established that recordings are "absolutely" unknowable it's dangerous to assume that a given recording has it.
Two, closely related, the tendency to use our test suite of "good recordings" can lead us astray for the same reason. The recordings that sound "right" on our system may simply have complimentary colorations to that system. If we switch out a component for something "better" we may discover that we've in fact made the sound worse, and we start chasing our tails for a new source, cables, speakers, or whatever to put things right again. Now you have inaccuracy chasing inaccuracy.
Since we can't evaluate recordings without an imperfect system, and can't evaluate a system or component without imperfect recordings, what to do? IMO it's look for the system or component that reveals the most differences between recordings. Such a system or component will by definition be more accurate to the recordings, since a coloration will be applied equally to all recordings, making them sound more alike.
Make sense?
[As an aside, I took something like 8 or 9 months to determine what level to set the tweeters in my most recent DIY speakers. (Measured "flat" was horribly bright, of course! ;-) ) I simply played the recordings, both good and bad, that I wanted to listen to. When I felt that, overall, things seemed too bright, I reduced tweeter level; when that proved to be too much, I went back part way. And so on. Eventually I didn't feel the need to change it anymore, and that was the point where bright recordings sounded bright, dull ones dull, and others "just right." Had I used just my "test suite" of "good-sounding" recordings (yes, I have one, too!) I might have arrived at a different--and likely erroneous--setting.]
Sorry, but it took a few attempts for me to explain what I was thinking.I basically agree with you. I've gone through the same iterative adjustment process multiple times with toe-in alone, and always seem to end up striking a balance that represents many different recording styles reasonably well. But I can understand why people who have fairly specific tastes pursue a more narrow minded approach.
What bothers me most about the "absolute sound" concept is that I think many people use it as an excuse to claim superiority for their particular set of priorities and preferences.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: