insider9
Well-known member
Same. Can't believe it. No social media, booze and Alice in Chains.... what's your mum's name? 😂
stereoman
Well-known member
Very good question. What I meant is the fact that Sony sound is not so much susceptible to acoustical damage as many Hi Fi speakers. Sony for years have been promoting certain frequency boosts in their products what of course is being impacted by acoustics but suffer less than many other pieces of audio equipment. That is my opinion - and what is very important keeping the sound clarity at the same time.
Jimboo
Well-known member
12th Monkey
Moderator
Presumably one translated from one language to another. Via a third. And by a less than gifted translator.
I read it as Sony mucks about with certain frequencies (which I suspect it would dispute), which somehow helps produce a less distorted sound. I can't say I am following the logic.
I read it as Sony mucks about with certain frequencies (which I suspect it would dispute), which somehow helps produce a less distorted sound. I can't say I am following the logic.
stereoman
Well-known member
12th Monkey
Moderator
stereoman
Well-known member
Romulus
Well-known member
I listen to music mostly to my ripped Cd's on my laptop, right now I am listening to a ripped WAV of Sans - Saens 'Danse Macabre' via heaphones (Sony approx £20) connected to lap top. It sounds fabulous, I don't know what else can be improved in the sound...? But at the same time I heard the ATC SCM40's speakers with ATCSIA2-100 Integrated amp at Bristol HiFi Show few years ago and this is the system I dream of having if I had the money. I just loved that ATC way of sending out sound.. HiFi is a strange hobby...! Maybe its more settling to be ignorant and just accept what I got...
Al ears
Well-known member
If you did that you wouldn't be on this forum....
Mike Hunt
Well-known member
Mike Hunt
Well-known member
chris661
Well-known member
Okay, so nothing to do with controlled directivity (cutting down on near reflections), cardioid bass, etc, which might genuinely help with room issues.
Sorry, but having a particular frequency response, all else being equal, will do nothing to change the room/speaker interaction.
Chris
PS - I quite like the Sony SRS-XB12 for what it is, but their latest high-end desktop system leaves me with a lot of fundamental questions about the engineers at Sony.
12th Monkey
Moderator
abacus
Well-known member
If you have a small peak at 5 KHz on the speaker and a room resonance of 5 KHz the room will overemphasize it and it will sound hard.
If you have a small dip on a speaker at 5 KHz combined with a 5 KHz room resonance the room resonance will not be so excited, thus the speaker will sound more neutral.
The above is just an example as speaker frequency response and room colouration are way more complex than that, so yes the frequency response makes a big difference to the sound in different rooms.
Bill
Dom
Well-known member
insider9
Well-known member
iMark
Well-known member
chris661
Well-known member
In your example, the room interaction is the same either way. It's not "fixing an acoustic problem", it's just a coincidence.
What if my room has a peak at 40Hz, and yours has a peak at 50Hz? What're they going to do then? You can't make something that's automatically right for both.
Chris
abacus
Well-known member
Where did I say it fixed the room problem, as you say it would just be coincidental, but this coincidence would give you a better sound as you would get less resonance, which proves frequency response matters? (You do know that one of room correction features is altering the frequency response to reduce the problem, which is why it is used in professional installations)
Bill
chris661
Well-known member
Bill, these are the posts in question.
The claim appears to be that, if you apply"certain frequency boosts", the acoustics don't matter so much.
I can't see how this could be true. If it was, every PA system ever would use it in order to bypass the acoustics of any given venue.
Frequency response matters in terms of how the speaker will sound, but says nothing about how it'll interact with a given room. What matters there is directivity, which goes back to my post:
As an example, a narrow-pattern Synergy horn and a conventional direct-radiating enclosure can have the same on-axis frequency response, but will sound very different in a room - one will throw more sound at the walls than the other. More reflections = different sound.
Chris
The claim appears to be that, if you apply"certain frequency boosts", the acoustics don't matter so much.
I can't see how this could be true. If it was, every PA system ever would use it in order to bypass the acoustics of any given venue.
Frequency response matters in terms of how the speaker will sound, but says nothing about how it'll interact with a given room. What matters there is directivity, which goes back to my post:
As an example, a narrow-pattern Synergy horn and a conventional direct-radiating enclosure can have the same on-axis frequency response, but will sound very different in a room - one will throw more sound at the walls than the other. More reflections = different sound.
Chris
Last edited:
stereoman
Well-known member
Yep. Actually you are right Acoustics is 99% the bad sound culprit. It is sometimes enough that I put only one absorber or a diffuser and the sound can be really improved. In terms of Sony sound - I meant more that Sony is keeping the sound clarity throughout many of their products - while many other Hi Fi systems have problems with it. Pioneer also does a good job. Sony in an acoustically treated room is simply a delight. For the record - I used Cyrus, Spendor, Leema Acoustics, B&W, Canton, Accuphase. While Accuphase and Canton was the best synergy I cannot say today's all-one-systems sound so much worse. They do not give you the subtelty of the sound of the Hi Fi but the listening enjoyment is sometimes superb especially for the price. Again - even a 10000 pound system is nothing with bad acoustics. So start with your room first.
12th Monkey
Moderator
stereoman
Well-known member
1 % the restI'd have to contest that 99% of issues with sound reproduction are down to the room. You've not even mentioned lead yet...
I also can't see how anyone would be satisfied with Sony after that list of previous kit.
and for the second question - simply just that. Let me explain. I have throughout many years have listened to various Hi Fi - Hi Fi is only about sounding different or about sophistication of the sound spectrum - BUT - it has nothing to do with music listening pleasure as such. You can buy expensive analytical Hi Fi but it does not mean it will give you the enjoyment of this sheer straightforward bass boom full of mid energy ghetto blaster for example. That is the point. Sheer musical enjoyment can come with only slight sound sophistication - and that is why Sony was just an example. This is my experience that HIgh End or epensive Hi Fi might not mean musical enjoment at all and none guarantees you this. What it does - is simply giving you analytical sound insight.
Last edited:
12th Monkey
Moderator
I know that some gear is supposed to sound as though it's lecturing you about subtleties rather than wanting to party, and back when I was a regular reader the likes of Naim and Cyrus were supposed to prioritise a feeling of liveliness.
But I also think that provided a clinical sound is avoided that fidelity has an awful lot to offer. Getting a bass drum to have the instant attack and decay that characterises it in real life takes good gear, ditto with generating a taut bassline - and these things are what get feet tapping.
I also find that there's nothing that connects me with music like feeling the singer's emotions, and that takes a fair stab at reality from hifi to achieve. The 'You're going to reap just what you sow' refrain in Lou Reed's Perfect Day feels almost as though you are intruding - it's so personal and emotive.
A realistic soundstage is something I'd hate to do without too - it makes music immersive.
So whilst I agree that an over-emphasis on the analytical can be a bad thing, a lack of musical insight is just as undesirable - for me at least.
But I also think that provided a clinical sound is avoided that fidelity has an awful lot to offer. Getting a bass drum to have the instant attack and decay that characterises it in real life takes good gear, ditto with generating a taut bassline - and these things are what get feet tapping.
I also find that there's nothing that connects me with music like feeling the singer's emotions, and that takes a fair stab at reality from hifi to achieve. The 'You're going to reap just what you sow' refrain in Lou Reed's Perfect Day feels almost as though you are intruding - it's so personal and emotive.
A realistic soundstage is something I'd hate to do without too - it makes music immersive.
So whilst I agree that an over-emphasis on the analytical can be a bad thing, a lack of musical insight is just as undesirable - for me at least.
2 words You Tube. Everything you need to know is reviewed on there and though I can’t explain it people love sound clips, as if it makes a difference when you listen on your system. How do expect to know what kef ref speakers sound like when your listening too a Sonos play bar, but people seem adamant they can hear the difference, up there with cable imo if not even more so. But a different argument for another time.
Tube tube though, a free resource with the likes of John darko giving great reviews and pod casts.
Tube tube though, a free resource with the likes of John darko giving great reviews and pod casts.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram