|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
63.87.108.130
In Reply to: informal poll, Agree or Disagree: "Two channel audio has one sweet spot." posted by Duke on March 13, 2007 at 14:21:57:
First of all, thank you to all who participated. I appreciate your time and the thought you put into it.Since most people wrote comments, I could see that there were more divisions of opinion than the two the poll allowed for. Since this is all informal anyway, I decided to classify the responses into three rather than two categories because that made more sense to me given the additional information available in the comments made.
Category One - The one sweet spot is where it's at: Ten votes fit into this category. I think Acres Verde's comment was excellent, so in case anyone missed it here it is again:
"It is more important for me to have one place where everything is just optimally locked in than any other scenario which would constitute compromise for the sake of a broader, more stable, but generally more diffuse soundfield."
Category Two - The one sweet spot is preferred, but the sound quality in other areas is still important: Ten votes fit this descripton. Musetap summed it up well for this group:
"For "critical" listening the sweet spot is best, but certainly NOT all that matters to me, not by a long shot."
Category Three - One sweet spot not favored over other locations; or many sweet spots; or one very large sweet spot: Nine votes in this category. I'll use Drew Eckert's comment:
"Properly setup good speakers lack a sweet spot for tonal correctness, and image correctly over an area."
Bob Rex noted that there is often a row of "sweet spots" along the centerline of the room were the speakers & listener form an isosocles triange. This has been my experience as well, and I've noticed that my chosen "sweet spot" is usually farther back along this centerline than that which most people would choose.
Just for the record, I didn't vote - but my vote would have landed in the second category.
Follow Ups:
To deviously attempt to negate my obvious assertion that the stereo sweet spot is most important for two-channel audiophiles, you devised a slanted biased almost evil question that gave two EXTREME choices for the answer:
-- Either the sweet spot is ALL that matters, or it is not.This biased writing style is just like G. W. Bush blathering: "Either you support me, or you support our enemy!"
Well the sweet spot is VERY important for me (90%) but even I couldn't literally say I ONLY care about the sweet spot! So to be literal when answering your slanted biased devious so-called polling question, even I would have to say no to the question (because I'm at the 90% sweet spot / 10% other seats level, not at 100% sweet spot!!!).
Since the mid-1960's when stereo showed up, audiophiles who have been interested in improving the sound quality of their stereos realized that they had to sit equal distances from the two speakers to hear the correct stereo image. Usually only one listener could hear the optimum stereo image at a time.
If the seats were located far from the speakers, two side-by-side seats could fit into that stereo sweet spot, even though each listeners' ears were not exactly equal distances from the speakers. Close enough for government work.
While audiophiles may sometimes do other things while listening, and sometimes sit away from the sweet spot, WHEN they are focused on sound quality, either for themselves or demonstrating the stereo to a friend, they make sure the listener sits with his ears equal distances from the speakers, or darn close to that!
That's the sweetest spot for every two-channel stereo.
When audiophiles buy new components, or tweak their systems, they do so to improve the sound quality at the best seat in their house -- the sweet spot.
It may not be the only seat they are concerned about -- there may be another seat right next to it so both are in the sweet spot.
If the speakers are quite far away, perhaps three people on a couch will all fit into the sweet spot, although I've only experienced this once in 40 years as an audiophile.
It would be a bizarre two-channel audiophile who optimizes his system for a seat that is not equal distances from the two speakers. Bizarre because optimizing the sound quality for a seat outside of the two-channel (equal, or close to equal, distances from both speakers) sweet spot is an oxymoron.
It would be rather interesting to find a two-channel audiophile who has spent $1000's on expensive wires ... yet for serious listening usually does not sit with his ears equal distances from his two stereo speakers. You perhaps?
.
.
.
I think that fits the preference breakdown pretty wellI have customers that couldn't care *less* what the sound is like out of the sweetspot
I have customers that would like to have the sound be at least decent out of the sweetspot
I have customers that are annoyed that they have to sit in the sweetspot
Women, especially, fall into category 3 and don't understand the point of a speaker that only sounds good in one spot.
What is amazing to me is how the last 5-10dB or so of dispersion is critical. I have speakers that are down less than 5B off axis and they have a *dramatically* bigger sweetspot than those that are down only a few dB more. I can understand now what people see in omnidirectional speakers if and when they can give them the room they need.
Some people reading my posts (47.5%) just don't get my (over-the-top) humor, which takes me so long to create (about five minutes) in posts that readers so often print as hard copies (for their birdcages) and then get in violent arguments with me over (life or death) issues such as:
(1) How long it takes speakers to break-in
(2) Whether it is possible to imagine two components sound different; and
(3) Whether the bass heard in the two-channel sweet spot is more important than the bass that would be heard elsewhere in the room if anyone happened to sit there ... (or in the next room, oh so important to Duke because he evaluates speaker sound quality from the next room ... which must look pretty strange at audio stores!)Well That's all folks!
You are insinuating that I made some claim about people "optimiz[ing] sound quality for a non-sweet-spot seat".Argue against what I said, not what I didn't say.
Duke
Ba-Da-BoomIt only took me two days to come up with that clever response!
That's a new record for me!
.
.
.
.
;
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
...that the language you are now whining about is your very own?"The sound quality at ONE SWEET SPOT is all that matters to most two-channel audio system owners." - Richard BassNut Greene, 4-7-07, http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/messages/245601.html
"Two channel audio has one sweet spot" - Richard BassNut Greene, 4-12-07, http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/messages/245996.html
The more you object to the wording in my poll, the more you are objecting to YOUR OWN WORDS.
I put your claims to the test using your own language. The results speak for themsleves.
Also, did you read the comments people wrote? Very few people simply agreed or disagreed - most explained their exact position. So whether or not you like my poll, the responses are quite useful.
You seem to be a rare two-channel audiophile who doesn't agree.That would make you WRONG with a capital W.
The sweet spot is where audiophiles sit when they want the highest sound quality from their two channel stereo system.
It's possible that two chairs side by side will fit into the sweet spot for some stereos.
I once sat on a three-man wide couch located very far from the speakers where the left and right seats sounded just as good as the center seat. That was a rare three-seat sweet spot.
I said the sound quality at one sweet spot is all that matters to most two-channel audio system owners. That statement was not strong enough -- most can mean 51%. If I could, I would re-write my sentence to say:
"When high quality sound is the primary concern, a large majority of two-channel stereo owners judge sound quality while sitting in their "sweet spot", rather than from other room locations,
... or from an adjoining room, like you!Therefore the bass frequency response in a relatively small sweet spot area is considerably more important than the quite different bass frequency response elsewhere in a room.
.
.
Richard BN Greene, 4-16-2007 (to Duke): "Two channel stereo sounds best when the left ear to left speaker distance equals the right ear to right speaker distance. You seem to be a rare two-channel audiophile who doesn't agree. That would make you WRONG with a capital W."Duke, 4-15-2007: "Bob Rex noted that there is often a row of "sweet spots" along the centerline of the room were the speakers & listener form an isosocles triange. This has been my experience as well, and I've noticed that my chosen "sweet spot" is usually farther back along this centerline than that which most people would choose."
Argue against what I said, not what I didn't say.
You persist in making "straw man" arguments. This is a common internet tactic wherein a person attributes an extreme and/or ridiculous statement to his opponent, and then argues against that statement. It usually works well, unless the opponent calls him on it and points out that at best his argument is based on a fallacy, and at worst (if he realizes what he's doing) he is being dishonest.
This is the last time I give you the benefit of the doubt on this subject. Here, click on the link below and read up on the "straw man" fallacy. Learn to recognize it in yourself and in others.
Regarding your other statement, I often suggest listening from another room as a quick and effective way to evalutate the power response, or reverberant field response, of a loudspeaker system. This also is good for evaluating system dynamic contrast. It is not the only listening test I advocate. No point in doing this test unless the speaker sounds good from the sweet spot, but suppose you have several speakers that sound good from the sweet spot. Listening from another room will give you additional useful information that can help predict which speaker is the least likely to become fatiguing long-term. You don't alway have the hours necessary to find out at what point listening fatigue sets in. Also, in case you missed the poll, many people do care very much about how their speakers sound from outside the traditional sweet spot.
Once again, you misrepresented my position by making it sound like listening from another room is the only way I judge sound quality. It is one of several tests I use.
Please stick to arguing against what my position really is. And if you don't know what my position really is, just ask me.
Thanks,
Duke
Only to find out you are a very strange audiophile who DOES judge speakers by how they sound from another room!So here I am arguing that the bass quality in the sweet spot is much more important to a two-channel stereo owner than the bass in other room areas ... with a guy who judges speakers by how they sound from the next room!
You worded your poll so that ONLY an audiophile with absolutely zero percent concern about sound quality at non-sweet-spot locations could answer "YES".
Since two-channel audio system owners sometimes have people listen from non-sweet spot locations, it would make sense that they apply at least a little attention to those alternative seats.
The sweet spot seat(s) location is still most important for two-channel audio quality.
And you can't sit behind someone in the sweet spot and still get the same high sound quality sound he hears ... unless he is a midget.
I give up! You are judging speaker quality from the next room ... while I argue about how important the sweet spot is for two-channel stereo sound quality.
Do you judge concerts from the street outside the theater?
Saves money on tickets.
Or do you just love to argue.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
I think listening from another room makes it *far* easier to answer the most important questions that many people never really ask when auditioning.1. Is the sound natural?
2. Is the sound realistic?Many subjectively "good sounding" speakers don't sound anything like a real instrument playing in the next room, but really accurate/transparent ones do.
I don't see how Duke is the one being argumentative here. Sounds like he's being reasonable to me.
Thanks for letting me know you use it too.I've heard it called the L.I.A.R. test - stands for "listening in another room".
When giving a demo to a customer, I usually ask them to step into an adjacent room specifically so I can let them hear the reverberant sound thusly isolated. I explain why this test is a good predictor of long-term listening enjoyment, as outlined in my "not a good analogy" reply to Richard. No it's not the only thing that matters, but in my experience it's rare to find a speaker that sounds wrong from the next room but is still highly enjoyable long-term. I can only think of one offhand.
Unless you often listen to speakers from another room away from the primary listening room.Otherwise it is most likely a complete waste of time to audition speakers from a room that does not contain the speakers when you could have used the same time to listen from the primary listening room!
While I would guess if speaker A sounded better than speaker B in the primary listening room, then it's likely that speaker A would still sound better than speaker B when you listened from another room, but who cares?
Some audiophiles are pretty strange when it comes to logical thinking.
.
.
.
.
Weight may or may not have anything to do with the sound quality. Listening in another room is throwing a spotlight on one of the more initially elusive but long-term significant factors.A speaker can sound initially impressive from the sweet spot but can become fatiguing over time. I can cite studies that show a correlation between radiation pattern and long-term listener preference. Briefly, a speaker with an irregular power response (which typically arises from radiation pattern issues) is more likely to generate listening fatigue over time.
Let me explain one reason why this can happen. The ear/brain system is constantly analyzing incoming sounds to see if they are new sounds or reflections of a recent sound (recent meaning like within the last 40 millisconds). The ear looks primarily at the spectral balance when deciding whether it's a new sound or an old one. With naturally-occuring sounds, the spectral balance of the reflections is very similar to that of the first-arrival sound. With loudspeakers, whose directional characteristics change with frequency, the spectral balance of the reverberant energy usually starts out skewed - there's more reverberant energy at frequencies where the radiation pattern is wide and less where the radiation pattern is narrow. The ear/brain system has to work harder to correctly classify these spectrally-skewed reflections, and over time the result can be a headache. I'm not saying this is the one and only source of listening fatigue, but I believe it's a fairly significant one in many cases.
Listening from another room is a quick way to hear what's going on with the reverberant field, and the reverberant field matters because most of the sound that reaches your ears in a normal home listening setup is reverberant sound. Note that live voices and instruments sound realistic from the next room, but few speakers do. If we're looking for speakers that do a good job of recreating a live music event, generating a natural-sounding reverberant field is part of that. Note that the choice is not between speakers that do or do not generate reverberant field energy - the choice is between speakers that do or do not get it right.
The little NHT 3-way speakers John Ashman believes in use a very intelligent spacing of driver diameters and crossover frequencies to minimize the spectral discrepancy between the direct and reverberant energy. I would bet that, if these speakers sound good from the next room (and since John uses that test I'm sure they do), they are also very non-fatiguing to listen to long-term. I have gone a different route in my own designs, but if I wasn't playing around other radiation pattern control techniques I'd be working on 3-ways or 4-ways philosophically very similar to the little NHTs.
And as John noted, there's something special about a speaker that can recreate the illusion of live music without any help from imaging and soundstaging. Nothing against imaging of course, but some people are less interested in where the musicians are on the stage than in why they are on the stage.
It's not THE way of judging a speaker, but it does give you an insight. I don't know why, but once you can't see the speaker and you've divorced yourself a bit from the room, the only question you can really ask yourself is "does it *sound* like someone's playing live or just a reproduction?" It takes imaging out of the question and substitutes tonality/reality. Don't know why that's such a hard concept. It's not an audiophile trick, it's a music lover's trick.
Listen to one speaker playng mono IN your listening room if you want to judge amplitude response without the distraction and comb filter cancellations from two stereo speakers.Old audiophile trick.
The DIY Altec Lansing Valancia "monster speakers" I built in 1971 sounded better from other rooms -- unfortunately sounded not so great while listening in the same room (my 150 square foot teenager bedroom.)
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Boy do you need a course in statistics :-)Next thing you know, you'll be trying a poll to see if most people listen to music on speakers (as opposed to non-music on speakers or music off speakers, i.e. live) :-)))
...five out of four people have trouble with math.
…once asked her class what statistics had in common with the bikini.After what I assume was probably a reasonable pause for stunned silence, he told them "what the reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital". A very valuable lesson that frequently informs my assessment of statistically based claims.
I think most people can do arithmetic, ie the basic tasks of adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing, reasonably well by which I mean well enough for the normal activities of life. Where the problems start is when they start to reason with numbers, to read meaning into them, or engage in activities where numbers are descriptive in ways other than the descriptive use of numberical information like "36-24-36". You have to learn some things over and above arithmetic to understand what statistical measures and some of the other things done with numbers mean , and that's where the level of education in the general population starts to fall off.
I know that you like to build speakers. I am wondering what you were hoping to learn from an informal poll? Will it change your design criteria? It's none of my buisiness, just currious.Or was it just for fun? That's cool too.
I guess one conclusion might be that audiophiles are fairly diverse in their listening styles, but it's not haphazard. We each like what we like for very good reasons.The catalyst for the poll was a battle of wits that had degenerated into a war of attrition - to see who would develop carpal tunnel first. My sparring partner had made some claims about the priority audiophiles placed on the sweet spot, and I decided to find out if audiophiles agreed with him or not. The quotes in my original post were his words, which he subsequently objected to as being "too strong" and therefore likely to bias the poll. But I think the comments people wrote made it clear what their opinions were, which was much more useful than a simple "agree" or "disagree".
Duke
I came in way too late to to the game, as usual.I'm always currious to hear what people are learning when they are designing their own stuff. That's why I thought I would ask. But it's just a FYI poll. Got it.
Btw, I agree with your conclusion : a diverse listening style, but not haphazard.
Another parameter that could enter here is the degree of "critical listening" - 99% of my listening is in the sweet spot but I am often reading while listening (although I wouldn't call it 'background music')so my attention might waver between what I am reading and the music; although I am always aware of the music I only put my full continuous attention on it for critical listening about half the time. One might ask what's the point of being in the sweet spot if you are not fully involved with the music and doing nothing except listening? I guess it comes down to how good a multi-tasker you are.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: