tuga

Siegfried Linkwitz' thoughts on loudspeakers and domestic reproduction

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, mr neds said:

Who was it that listened with their speakers facing away from them- Alvin Gold, or one of the other hi fi mag old timers? He said it gave greater realism. Anyone remember?

Amar Bose?

xOHKiNF.jpg

7asZ4Ky.gif

Edited by tuga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mr neds said:

Who was it that listened with their speakers facing away from them- Alvin Gold, or one of the other hi fi mag old timers? He said it gave greater realism. Anyone remember?

I think it was Jimmy Harris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer
44 minutes ago, lower bullens said:

I think it was Jimmy Harris

It was Jimmy Hughes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tuga said:

Who was it that listened with their speakers facing away from them- Alvin Gold, or one of the other hi fi mag old timers? He said it gave greater realism. Anyone remember?

He obviously never auditioned a pair of Bose 901s first (designed to have most of the sound from reflections from back and side walls with only one driver facing the listener.  I have to say I have heard them in different environments and when sited ideally (where the room has usable corners and back wall) they can sound very very good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/06/2019 at 15:48, PuritéAudio said:

Actually it is about a loudspeaker which accurately reproduces the recording.

Keith

Good luck with working out that one - it is not as if we are present in the recording studio listening the final mix the way the producer intends it :D   In reality it is our ears telling us which we like the best.  As i said it was interesting seeing the different criteria used by a famous musician and a famous producer that opened my eyes to the fact that everyone has their own idea of what sounds right to them and has different criteria in choosing their kit (and one of those should have a good idea of how accurately the speaker is reproducing the recording (if it was a record he produced which funnily enough some were). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/06/2019 at 17:47, tuga said:

As for Physics does not allow the accurate reproduction of the original sound field of a live unamplified musical event with only two speakers, it's a fact.

Physics also prohibited bumble bees from flying for quite a while. Science advances, knowledge increases, theories get improved and replaced.

Any objectivist who thinks this will be different for domestic audio reproduction is fooling themselves.

I may have missed something, and probably have anyway, but so far I haven't seen measurements explaining soundstage convincingly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tin said:

Physics also prohibited bumble bees from flying for quite a while. Science advances, knowledge increases, theories get improved and replaced.

Any objectivist who thinks this will be different for domestic audio reproduction is fooling themselves.

I may have missed something, and probably have anyway, but so far I haven't seen measurements explaining soundstage convincingly.

Do you know what sound field is? (hint: it's not soundstage)

The original sound field cannot be reproduced by two speakers and I have explained why in a previous post. You are entitled to your beliefs and your wishful thinking, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tuga said:

Do you know what sound field is? (hint: it's not soundstage)

The original sound field cannot be reproduced by two speakers and I have explained why in a previous post. You are entitled to your beliefs and your wishful thinking, though...

I was referring to soundstage as an example, I wasn't referring to sound field. Stage and field are written very differently, surely you must be able to recognise that.

As you very spectacularly missed my point, let me give another example; quantum tunneling wasn't possible in Newtons day. Obviously a lot of particles didn't know that and they tunneled very quantumly anyway.

What is impossible by the laws of physics we understand today, can be achievable tomorrow. What we know to be correct, will be obsolete.

It is not wishful thinking, it is what happens everyday in physics. Audio reproduction is such a young field in science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tin said:

I was referring to soundstage as an example, I wasn't referring to sound field. Stage and field are written very differently, surely you must be able to recognise that.

As you very spectacularly missed my point, let me give another example; quantum tunneling wasn't possible in Newtons day. Obviously a lot of particles didn't know that and they tunneled very quantumly anyway.

What is impossible by the laws of physics we understand today, can be achievable tomorrow. What we know to be correct, will be obsolete.

It is not wishful thinking, it is what happens everyday in physics. Audio reproduction is such a young field in science.

This is what I wrote:

Physics does not allow the accurate reproduction of the original sound field of a live unamplified musical event with only two speakers, it's a fact.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Let's not argue over sound stage/field.

Let's discuss realism (the illusion or performers in the room effect).

Currently, (which means over the next few months), I am playing with the idea of phase correct systems vs phase inaccurate systems. e.g. NOS DACs are phase accurate, despite relatively high levels of harmonic distortion, while OS DACs screw up timing.

When the brain localises sound sources, it does so by time differential of a sound arriving at each ear. And part of realism is based on aural memory models of real sounds, where certain frequencies are in relation to each other and in time. 

I am wondering if NOS DACs being phase correct, with amps that are phase correct, and speakers (which normally have to be phase corrected by DSP, or otherwise be digital and achieve the same) results in more accurate sound staging and subjective realism, compared to a completely passive system using an OS DAC and amps where the manufacturers couldn't give a hoot about phase.

And before anybody mentions it... yes, I know we cannot hear absolute phase, but it has not been tested in the context of the above inquiry.

Edited by Metatron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Realism is what I discovered was most important - certainly for the vast majority of recordings. By realism I mean timbral realism, so when someone plays a trumpet it sounds like a trumpet in the room, when someone plays a hammond organ the same.

That's what matters. You cannot recreate the original recording space and you were never meant to. You can however put close facsimiles of real musicians playing real instruments in your living room.

Reading back to the start of the thread (sorry I'm a self opinionated sod), this is basically what Toole is saying and it doesn't surprise me. Imaging for imaging's sake is, by definition, detrimental to musical enjoyment.

Edited by Tune
Just read the first page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Tune said:

You cannot recreate the original recording space and you were never meant to. 

I think that depends on the recording? I think my stereo is doing a good job when I get a sense of the acoustic. Doesn't happen very often, for sure, but strangely interesting when it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. Sense of the desired acoustic sure - but that comes naturally with low linear distortion and sensible speaker choice based on your rooms dimensions.

I'm talking about the soundstage brigade. We've all been there. I know I have. It's ultimately pointless in the grand scheme of things IME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Tune said:

I'm talking about the soundstage brigade. We've all been there. I know I have. It's ultimately pointless

Why?

Just recently I heard excellent soundstaging. Very real and palpable with the cliche "singer in the room" illusion. 

EDIT: I should add it wasn't with a special Chesky or other audiophile label, just a run of the mill record that I enjoy that was transformed when George47 brought his DAC round to mine and put it in place of my DAC. The track was "Dante's Prayer" by Loreena McKennitt. Played a lot of Lissie's latest album as well -- equally 'there' on realism factor.

Edited by Metatron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

To return to the first post in the thread, some of what is written makes sense, some does not, and a lot is little more than opinion.

I am sure I am not the only one who has actually heard one of his products (the Pluto). If they are the embodiment of his theories and approach, I can only suggest 'misguided' is an appropriate word.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.