HiFi - Imagination, Exaggeration and Colouration?

[Vladimir]

Why on earth would you expect a DVD player to sound better than a CDP or vice versa? They do the same thing. *scratch_one-s_head* Where do people get these ideas?

 

[Ajani]

Why on earth would you expect a DVD player to sound better than a CDP or vice versa? They do the same thing. *scratch_one-s_head* Where do people get these ideas?

Why do people believe an integrated amp should sound better than a receiver? We believe what we want, regardless of what science shows. Just seeing some of the extremely negative reactions we get on HiFi forums, when these topics are discussed, shows the problem with the hobby. We treat the reproduction of sound like it's Art or Witchcraft.

Instead of the artists being in the recording studio on the production side, the HiFi manufacturers see themselves as artists colouring the sound by ear as they please. The consumer mixes and matches by ear to create what they like. All of which is fine, if that's your goal. But if your aim to actually reproduce the original work, rather than altering or remixing it, then you need to focus on the science.

 

[Ajani]

There is no need for room acoustic treatment or DSP. Speakers with good on-axis and off-axis FR will sound good in any room, this is proven with research. If you work in a studio then you may need acustic treatment, but for home use this is absolutely uneccessary to get good sound.

Here's that video again explaining why. *wink*

Very interesting video. Best of all it's not too difficult to follow.

It is an excellent video and it should be compulsary viewing.

Chris

It makes a number of fascinating points:

1) That they can use proper anechoic measurements to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, how a speaker will sound in a listening room. Which seems to be the point Vlad is making about not needing room treatment and DSP.

2) When they first introduced DBT at Harman, all the engineers etc were quick to dismiss it as they were professionals and "knew" they didn't have any sighted biases. Yet they were humbled when they saw the differences in their scores between sighted and blind tests.

3) Dr. Toole thinks active speakers are the future of HiFi and the best way to accomplish the goals of speakers that measure and sound good. The JBL M2 being his example of state of the art.

 

[Frank Harvey]

His Monitor Audio PL100s are the issue IMO. You can treat a room to treat a room, but it wont really fix your speaker's issues.

That's if he wants to fix any inherent issues with his loudspeakers...

 

[Frank Harvey]

Why do people believe an integrated amp should sound better than a receiver? We believe what we want, regardless of what science shows. Just seeing some of the extremely negative reactions we get on HiFi forums, when these topics are discussed, shows the problem with the hobby. We treat the reproduction of sound like it's Art or Witchcraft.

I've done enough two channel demos with AV receivers to know that whilst some can sound good - sometimes very good - not too many can compete with the best two channel amplifiers at the same price. AV receiver manufacturers have to factor in the costs of video processors, video switching, network facilities, larger casework and heat sinks, in depth remote control, room EQ system, digital to analogue conversion, analogue to digital conversion, and numerous licenses into the budget of the product, and all this whilst providing at least 5-7 channels minimum of amplification. Given that, some do sound surprisingly good, probably better than they really should, but compare that to a flat out, analogue, two channel amplifier with no licenses to pay, and things come out in the amplifier's favour. But, whether any perceived differences are worth worrying about is another thing, as some may enjoy the flexibility of an AV receiver allows them. But something has to give - you can't make a £1000 AV receiver sound identical to a £1000 amplifier AND throw in all the extras for free. In fact, the better sounding AV products (for music anyway) tend to be those that have skimped on the multiple extras, and concentrated on quality components and amplification. It can be done, it just takes a well designed product in the first place, and money to achieve it.

Let's not forget that the slump of hi-fi in the late 90s/early 2000s was down to the growing popularity of the growth of AV receivers and surround sound - the last 10 years has seen people defecting back to two channel systems after the whole novelty has worn off, and they've realised that the sound quality of their music listening has been lacking. Some have purchased separate systems for two channel use, some have ditched their multi-channel system altogether, and chose to listen to their visual sources in straight stereo.

 

[Vladimir]

That they can use proper anechoic measurements to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, how a speaker will sound in a listening room. Which seems to be the point Vlad is making about not needing room treatment and DSP.

With the right combination of measurements in anechoic environment they can predict how a loudspeaker will sound in domestic rooms above 300Hz. Bellow it depends on positioning and room LF interactions. In a bigger room loudspeaker will dominate lower in frequency (as low as 20-30Hz). In a smaller one the room will dominate higher in frequency (up to 300Hz).

We can't really fix speaker design flaws to a finished loudspeaker with EQ, DSP or acoustic foam. A speaker needs to be as neutral and with smooth FR on and off-axis straight out of the factory. If it's active design they may use DSP in the electronic crossovers, or in passive designs in the passive crossovers but that is implemented in the design. If you use EQ to a finished design very likely you won't improve it, just make it worse (unless it's so horendeously bad that you can only improve on it). Why? Because there is so much more to speaker design than just notching EQ where you have resonances on-axis. Look at the Spinorama how much more it takes into consideration than just on-axis.

Harman researched and got the results that people easily "listen through rooms", as in we have room compensation in our brains that helps us discern timbral details despite room interferance (known fact in psycho-acoustics). And we do this much better and easier if loudspeaker have neutral character and good on-axis and off-axis FR. If these are different in coloration (tone, timbre) our brain is essentially listening to different loudspeakers on different axis and through incoming reflections. It becomes a mess. But if they are smooth and neutral, our brain recognizes it as just a delayed response of the same loudspeaker and merges it into one sound despite the time arrivals.

I'm really bad at explaining all this. There is absolutely nothing I can say that isn't plainly explained in the video. But sometimes we glide over important details, thinking we've consumed all content. But if you watch it again in few hours or days, new info comes up. It's 40 years of reasearch crammed into an hour of lecture for a student audience.

 

[Ajani]

That they can use proper anechoic measurements to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, how a speaker will sound in a listening room. Which seems to be the point Vlad is making about not needing room treatment and DSP.

With the right combination of measurements in anechoic environment they can predict how a loudspeaker will sound in domestic rooms above 300Hz. Bellow it depends on positioning and room LF interactions. In a bigger room loudspeaker will dominate lower in frequency (as low as 20-30Hz). In a smaller one the room will dominate higher in frequency (up to 300Hz).

We can't really fix speaker design flaws to a finished loudspeaker with EQ, DSP or acoustic foam. A speaker needs to be as neutral and with smooth FR on and off-axis straight out of the factory. If it's active design they may use DSP in the electronic crossovers, or in passive designs in the passive crossovers but that is implemented in the design. If you use EQ to a finished design very likely you won't improve it, just make it worse (unless it's so horendeously bad that you can only improve on it). Why? Because there is so much more to speaker design than just notching EQ where you have resonances on-axis. Look at the Spinorama how much more it takes into consideration than just on-axis.

Harman researched and got the results that people easily "listen through rooms", as in we have room compensation in our brains that helps us discern timbral details despite room interferance (known fact in psycho-acoustics). And we do this much better and easier if loudspeaker have neutral character and good on-axis and off-axis FR. If these are different in coloration (tone, timbre) our brain is essentially listening to different loudspeakers on different axis and through incoming reflections. It becomes a mess. But if they are smooth and neutral, our brain recognizes it as just a delayed response of the same loudspeaker and merges it into one sound despite the time arrivals.

I'm really bad at explaining all this. There is absolutely nothing I can say that isn't plainly explained in the video. But sometimes we glide over important details, thinking we've consumed all content. But if you watch it again in few hours or days, new info comes up. It's 40 years of reasearch crammed into an hour of lecture for a student audience.

The video was far more entertaining and simple to follow than I would have expected.

 

[Frank Harvey]

With the right combination of measurements in anechoic environment they can predict how a loudspeaker will sound in domestic rooms above 300Hz. Bellow it depends on positioning and room LF interactions. In a bigger room loudspeaker will dominate lower in frequency (as low as 20-30Hz). In a smaller one the room will dominate higher in frequency (up to 300Hz).

If I recall correctly, it is mentioned in the FAQ section on Classe's website regarding the parametric EQ that EQ isn't generally needed above the 300/400Hz region (I forget the exact frequency they mentioned - I'm sure it was 300 though).

There are some out there who would have you believe that high quality systems sound naff (and are pointless) without EQ, which is of course, total nonsense. You know who, Ellis, but of course, he would dismiss the video as rubbish

The video was far more entertaining and simple to follow than I would have expected.

Agreed, and seems to explain a little of why I like what I like, and what I have found in the last in untreated, particularly awkward, rooms.

 

[Ajani]

Why do people believe an integrated amp should sound better than a receiver? We believe what we want, regardless of what science shows. Just seeing some of the extremely negative reactions we get on HiFi forums, when these topics are discussed, shows the problem with the hobby. We treat the reproduction of sound like it's Art or Witchcraft.

I've done enough two channel demos with AV receivers to know that whilst some can sound good - sometimes very good - not too many can compete with the best two channel amplifiers at the same price. AV receiver manufacturers have to factor in the costs of video processors, video switching, network facilities, larger casework and heat sinks, in depth remote control, room EQ system, digital to analogue conversion, analogue to digital conversion, and numerous licenses into the budget of the product, and all this whilst providing at least 5-7 channels minimum of amplification. Given that, some do sound surprisingly good, probably better than they really should, but compare that to a flat out, analogue, two channel amplifier with no licenses to pay, and things come out in the amplifier's favour. But, whether any perceived differences are worth worrying about is another thing, as some may enjoy the flexibility of an AV receiver allows them. But something has to give - you can't make a £1000 AV receiver sound identical to a £1000 amplifier AND throw in all the extras for free. In fact, the better sounding AV products (for music anyway) tend to be those that have skimped on the multiple extras, and concentrated on quality components and amplification. It can be done, it just takes a well designed product in the first place, and money to achieve it.

Let's not forget that the slump of hi-fi in the late 90s/early 2000s was down to the growing popularity of the growth of AV receivers and surround sound - the last 10 years has seen people defecting back to two channel systems after the whole novelty has worn off, and they've realised that the sound quality of their music listening has been lacking. Some have purchased separate systems for two channel use, some have ditched their multi-channel system altogether, and chose to listen to their visual sources in straight stereo.

I really should have clarified that I was refering to Stereo Receivers (which may only include a Tuner). Yet even persons who want a Tuner are more likely to buy an Integrated and a seperate Tuner, than a Stereo Receiver.

As you rightfully said, HT ones have multiple channels and usually far more features and processing. So you would have to pay extra for all that. Though even then I wouldn't assume off hand that an Integrated amp will sound better.

 

[Ajani]

The video was far more entertaining and simple to follow than I would have expected.

Agreed, and seems to explain a little of why I like what I like, and what I have found in the last in untreated, particularly awkward, rooms.

IMO, that's what proper HiFi research should be about; explaining why we like what we like and how to achieve better results. So what should we really be measuring and how do those measurements correlate to what we actually hear in our listening rooms.

BTW, I find it really amusing that that HiFi retailers scored better than reviewers when it came to consistently identifying and rating differences. Yes I know the sample size were too small etc.. especially for the reviewers, but it was funny nonetheless.

 

[Vladimir]

I think from the big names Harman speaker brands (JBL, Revel and Infinity) and KEF are walking the path of neutral and smooth frequency response.

Compare the KEF Reference 201/2 to the MA PL100, and for giggles the B&W CM1.

KEF may not be as outspoken as Harman, but looks like they exactly know what they are doing. KEF Blade Two vs B&W 801D. The Dalex is not as good.

 

[Ajani]

I think from the big names Harman speaker brands (JBL, Revel and Infinity) and KEF are walking the path of neutral and smooth frequency response.

Compare the KEF Reference 201/2 to the MA PL100, and for giggles the B&W CM1.

KEF may not be as outspoken as Harman, but looks like they exactly know what they are doing. KEF Blade Two vs B&W 801D. The Dalex is not as good.

Too bad KEF haven't produced an active version of the LS50, I'd love to hear what those would sound like.

 

[Vladimir]

If KEF moved into domestic hi-fi actives it would be a game changer.

Now, for those that get a bad taste in their mouth when Harman and JBL are mentioned, play this video segment starting with 45m 53s. If I wasn't clear enough, I hope JA will help.

 

[Ajani]

If KEF moved into domestic hi-fi actives it would be a game changer.

I had hoped the X300A was their first step in that direction, but it seems more like a one off product.

 

[Vladimir]

If KEF moved into domestic hi-fi actives it would be a game changer.

I had hoped the X300A was their first step in that direction, but it seems more like a one off product.

They certanly dipped their toes with that one, but if KEF really dedicated themselves we know they will truly excel at it.

 

[Esra]

Kef LS50 are ridiculous good speakers at their price,just a little bump around 120-130Hz and a little bigger one around 2kHz.Both problems can be solved.First if you have room to play with distance from the walls and second with a toe in which is more than usual.Combine with a dead neutral amp--->perfect or modify the sound to your like with valve and more exciting amps.I really love these.

Revel Performa 206 are also awesome.Both speakers correlate with the video....good video*good*

I have to hear those M2 in my room...I have an eye on them for a long time

 

[ellisdj]

There's no training, we are born with ability to compensate rooms and noisy environments. If you bought the properly designed speakers, you only need to do some speaker positioning to iron out the sub 300Hz frequencies, not sit in a bass suckout and that's pretty much it.
Now if you bought those Wilson Alexandria XLFs with huge 100Hz boost, nothing will make them sound right.

My experience is the opposite no amount of speaker placement including measured to know exactly what i am getting and also no amount of money spent on kit speakers or any ancillaries or accessories makes as much improvement to the sound of an audio system as acoustic products and placement

You can train your brain to accept sonic flaws in sound reproduction not tune them out

Listen to a system in a well treated room and all that is laid bare.
The room is the most influential factor in sound reproduction hence why most blind tests prove no difference in what they test in my opinion - the person is hearing the room and not the system on test in the first place.

I have heard ultra expensive systems in bad rooms sounding exactly that bad, put them in a good acoustic room and they will light you up with sonic bliss.

In my eyes concentrate on the room first as much as you can great sound will follow otherwise it's always an up hill battle fighting physics and it's a battle you cannot win

 

[Ajani]

Kef LS50 are ridiculous good speakers at their price,just a little bump around 120-130Hz and a little bigger one around 2kHz.Both problems can be solved.First if you have room to play with distance from the walls and second with a toe in which is more than usual.Combine with a dead neutral amp--->perfect or modify the sound to your like with valve and more exciting amps.I really love these.

Revel Performa 206 are also awesome.Both speakers correlate with the video....good video*good*

I have to hear those M2 in my room...I have an eye on them for a long time

Revel are my favourite brand of passive speakers, but those JBL M2s look set to make me forget about them. The price of the M2s is shockingly low for statement speakers. Considering a pair of M2 with matching crown amplification is $20K, so less than a pair of Revel Salon 2s without amplification, it's hard not to take notice. Of course, both the M2 and the Salon are above my budget, but a man can dream.

 

[manicm]

If KEF moved into domestic hi-fi actives it would be a game changer.

I had hoped the X300A was their first step in that direction, but it seems more like a one off product.

They certanly dipped their toes with that one, but if KEF really dedicated themselves we know they will truly excel at it. 

All speculation really, why haven't B&W released a full size active? Or Naim? Or Focal? And the latter makes insanely expensive speakers. My guess it's easier said than done. Concede Linn are doing it well, but you mocked them for including everything and the kitchen sink in the speaker. You proclaimed yourself to be a seperates man.

 

[Ajani]

If KEF moved into domestic hi-fi actives it would be a game changer.

I had hoped the X300A was their first step in that direction, but it seems more like a one off product.

They certanly dipped their toes with that one, but if KEF really dedicated themselves we know they will truly excel at it.

Maybe, but KEF are speaker specialists. Actives require a mastery of the electronics as well.

It's easy for JBL, because they are part of the Harman group, so for M2's they simply use Crown amplification.

 

[Vladimir]

If KEF moved into domestic hi-fi actives it would be a game changer.

I had hoped the X300A was their first step in that direction, but it seems more like a one off product.

They certanly dipped their toes with that one, but if KEF really dedicated themselves we know they will truly excel at it.

Maybe, but KEF are speaker specialists. Actives require a mastery of the electronics as well.

It's easy for JBL, because they are part of the Harman group, so for M2's they simply use Crown amplification.

Aren't they associated with someone, like B&W is with Classe for example? I know they are owned also by a large corporation in China that has other brands under their umbrella.

I thin it's insane how good results they get with just passive crossovers, inhouse drivers and cabinet work. If they had the ease of design with electronic crossovers it would be the full package.

 

[Vladimir]

If KEF moved into domestic hi-fi actives it would be a game changer.

I had hoped the X300A was their first step in that direction, but it seems more like a one off product.

They certanly dipped their toes with that one, but if KEF really dedicated themselves we know they will truly excel at it.

All speculation really, why haven't B&W released a full size active? Or Naim? Or Focal? And the latter makes insanely expensive speakers. My guess it's easier said than done. Concede Linn are doing it well, but you mocked them for including everything and the kitchen sink in the speaker. You proclaimed yourself to be a seperates man.

They all have. B&W had Laurence Dickie's Nautilus, I'm sure you remember it needed bunch of amps and special active crossover.

Me hate on the sexy Linn active towers? Got your meds right today? I posted photos of them drooling in public more than any member here (perhaps just me).

And yes, I am a box swapper, this includes actives. I want ALL hi-fi!

 

[Thompsonuxb]

There's no training, we are born with ability to compensate rooms and noisy environments. If you bought the properly designed speakers, you only need to do some speaker positioning to iron out the sub 300Hz frequencies, not sit in a bass suckout and that's pretty much it.
Now if you bought those Wilson Alexandria XLFs with huge 100Hz boost, nothing will make them sound right.

My experience is the opposite no amount of speaker placement including measured to know exactly what i am getting and also no amount of money spent on kit speakers or any ancillaries or accessories makes as much improvement to the sound of an audio system as acoustic products and placement

You can train your brain to accept sonic flaws in sound reproduction not tune them out

Listen to a system in a well treated room and all that is laid bare.
The room is the most influential factor in sound reproduction hence why most blind tests prove no difference in what they test in my opinion - the person is hearing the room and not the system on test in the first place.

I have heard ultra expensive systems in bad rooms sounding exactly that bad, put them in a good acoustic room and they will light you up with sonic bliss.

In my eyes concentrate on the room first as much as you can great sound will follow otherwise it's always an up hill battle fighting physics and it's a battle you cannot win

What ellisdj said.....

I'd like to see these 'flat' speakers in an empty all concrete room.....

What happened to this thread anyway?

It's turned into a 'justification' feast....lol.

 

[manicm]

Last I checked B&W are associated with Rotel

Edit you're correct Vladimir, the group owns Classe as well, still, you'd think they'd have an active by now. Or Focal/Naim.

 

[Vladimir]

Last I checked B&W are associated with Rotel

Edit you're correct Vladimir, the group owns Classe as well, still, you'd think they'd have an active by now. Or Focal/Naim.

They all made actives. I think Linn, Focal and Naim still have actives in production. Naim has one with stacked separate amps and a crossover (for the Ovators I think).