Absolutes in audio reproduction

Howdy all,

After posting on a recent analogue thread regarding digital versus analogue, I stated that there are no absolutes with most things audio.

I thought it might be interesting to get member feedback and consensus on what people feel are absolutes. By this I mean a position /opinion on something that most folks, if not all, would agree with.

For example, most folks, I believe, would agree that a room that is treated to address obvious sonic anamolies will sound better than a room that is not treated.

Another would be that ML speakers, because of their impedance characteristics, do not perform up to their capabilties with amplifiers that are not designed to cope with this design issue.

GG

Hey G,

I'll take a crack at this...

Room Treatments -

Certainly a 'hot' topic as of late and I don't think many (or any) will argue the merits of room treatments. But there are several practical considerations. Large pieces of acoustic foam, bass traps, foam/acoustic cylindrical towers may not look very appealing, especially if the main audio room is also one's living room, or den. This is perhaps less of a problem if one has a dedicated listening room. Having said that, I have seen people add acoustic panels to their rooms and they look fantastic - they look as though they 'fit' into the space and not stick 'out.'

The other consideration is, of course, cost. Fully outfitting a room with treatments could run well into many thousands of dollars, and for some the end result justifies the price. Others will look at that cost and upgrade to better speakers (or electronics).

On electronics -

The physics mandates that our amps are capable of of delivering lots of current since the imedance can dip to very low levels. I won't argue that point, but for years I drove my Aerius i speakers with a Yamaha amp - hardly hi-end by anyone's standards on this forum. I then upgraded to a sunfire amp and ARC tube pre-amp. And yes, I was pleasantly surprised. But I could have lived with the old integrated amp. Is it me, or do integrated amps have a bad reputation?

I watched many a DVD and listened to all kinds of music (at low and moderately loud levels) and never thought my old integrated was being taxed.

Naturally going separates allows one to tinker and upgrade. If you want to bi-amp - you can easily do that with separates. If you want to buy two strong SS amps (one for each speaker), that's easy with separates. If you prefer tube technology - you can swap tubes in and out of your pre-amp and/or amplifiers as you see fit.

On speaker placement -

A highly underrated but very important concept and few bother to play with this subject. You can toil for hours moving the speakers around with respect to the front and side walls and also mess with the toe in/out and rake angle via spikes (or other speaker raising technology such as phone books).

This issue is tied to room treatments. Obviously the room response is related to the speaker position relative to the listener. Only trial and error helps find the optimum position(s).

On source material -

I am firm believer in quality recordings. It all starts here. Give me a good recording, and our speakers shine. A terrible rendition recorded from the car radio will sound just plain aweful.

What 'good' means is obviously subjective. Some prefer vinyl, others digital. Some might prefer a particular track on vinyl, but the same song, for another sound on the same record, might be better on the CD.

In general, DVD audio discs sound flat to me. But "Riding with the King" (Clapton and BB King) is one of my favorite discs to listen to.

On cables -

Well this one always stirs up a debate. I would say that upgrading the cables is fine...but the consensus seems to be that only a portion of your budget should be devoted to the speaker cables (much to the cable maker's chagrin). For just a few hundred bucks you can go to signal cable or blue jeans and get some quality wires. Other companies like Kimber are known to deliver lots of bang for the buck.

Yes, cable make a difference (even interconnects) but for the same money, I would add room treatments and better electronics first before dropping $1000+ on a pair of wires.

What I have assumed here is that the speakers remain constant and we are manipulating the other variables (treatments, CD players, etc). Of course the visual and audible character of the system is indeed housed within the speakers. The tones that eminate from panels and woofers resonate with the room and electronics. If you change the speaker, you change everything - sometimes dramatically.

While it is impossible to put numbers on these things, I would say that close to 70% of the experience is tied up in the speakers. The other 30% is influenced by the room, the CD player, the source material, etc. Everyone will argue that 30% number. Some will claim that's it is closer to 50% - "are you kidding me?! I changed out tubes last week and it was the best improvement ever!! My system has never sounded better!!!"

But that 30% is important. Changing the room response is a big deal. Buying better CDs is a big deal...and so on.

As Dan once told me, it's useless to try and weight this parameter (piece of equipment) vs the others. What you are after is system synergy. What piece complements the experience? What room treatments make the electonics disappear and improve the imaging and bottom end? That's what you are after and, in this sense, there are no absolutes.

Erik

Gordon Gray said:

I thought it might be interesting to get member feedback and consensus on what people feel are absolutes. By this I mean a position /opinion on something that most folks, if not all, would agree with.

Click to expand...

The absolute ABSOLUTE: Having a rig to listen to music versus not having anything. This setup or item(s) to play music does not matter as long as you can listen.

Gordon Gray said:

For example, most folks, I believe, would agree that a room that is treated to address obvious sonic anamolies will sound better than a room that is not treated.

Another would be that ML speakers, because of their impedance characteristics, do not perform up to their capabilties with amplifiers that are not designed to cope with this design issue.

GG

Click to expand...

This is an admirable cause - it says "what can I be sure of?". Perhaps we can't be sure of much.

A treated room may damp resonances that people actually like or have become accustomed to. Or they may make big subjective improvements to another. A badly designed amp, or a very well designed amp but with questionable technology or circuit type can sound unbelievable. Or they can sound terrible.

I have a set of rules that I have built up over the years for things that just seem to "work" for me. Everyone has to do this - it's a part of learning what sounds best to you, and therefore what rules you have written into your mental map. Much of the opinionated posts made here are in fact based precisely on this "map" people have built for themselves.

If you don't use your system much you probably haven't found "your" solution yet - or you simply don't like music that much.

You must build your own rules and revise them over time with what you learn. The only way to do this is to get out and listen.

Do it, or be disappointed - unless you have been incredibly lucky!

Every now and again, though, your rule book will take a severe beating

I don't think there really are any "givens" - there are some things that are more likely than others, but there are equally as many things that you need to know what you're doing.

Case in point - what you say about room treatments - you need to know what you're doing - just throwing a few broadband absorbers around the place could quite possibly yield worse sound that you started with!

I'd say the only given is that if you want better sound you're going to have to invest time to:
1: Educate yourself
2: Experiment.

Gordon Gray said:

...Another would be that ML speakers, because of their impedance characteristics, do not perform up to their capabilties with amplifiers that are not designed to cope with this design issue.

GG

Click to expand...

This has to be the most common absolute mentioned on this forum and elsewhere. This absolute is true, but often misunderstood.

It's the amps current output and not the watts that matter. And judging the power output of an amp by its wattage spec alone is insufficient and often misleading.

amey01 said:

1: Educate yourself
2: Experiment.

Click to expand...

That is what I did and this is what I came up with.

I'm currently using a "16 Watt" SET tube amp to power a pair of CLSIIz's. On paper it's not supposed to work nor sound good (if it works at all)...but it does work and it sounds great.

Wonderful observation Craig.

Who would have believed that a 16 watt SET tube amp would be a good match for the CLS IIZ?

GG

I'll vouch that Craig's CLSIIz's sound superb with his 16W SET amp. In fact, I heard them today, with his Squeezebox as source, direct to amp. VERY sweet, and suprisingly dynamic!

Ya never know unless you try! Rules are meant for breaking!

I agree, try everything....

In my view, it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

The try it till ‘ya like it approach is fine if you view this as a sport or an art form. Nothing wrong with that, but it will yield very different results for different people.

If looking to approximate some high level of performance, hopefully in close relation to the those used in the audio production, then there are definitely some guidelines that should be followed. But note that they are guidelines, not commandments.

As I’ve pointed out before, the high number of variables between performer and our ears is staggering, and few if any norms exist to ensure a consistent delivery experience. Therefore, the setup process is largely guided by the level of understanding of the elements in that chain and how they interact.

If setting up a system for mostly orchestral performance reproduction, I’d do one set of things, if setting up for mostly studio produced modern, multitrack recordings, then I’d do something different.

And if configuring for a balanced use of standards adhering movie reproduction (there actually have standards for this) and high-performance multichannel audio, then yet another set of guidelines would be used, and both room and equipment choices would be influenced.

So with the above provisos in place, here is my take on Absolutes:

The room influences the sound more than any other element in the chain.


The speaker to room interface is a critical element, and has the next highest level of impact


Humans are non-deterministic when evaluating audio systems

Craig said:

This has to be the most common absolute mentioned on this forum and elsewhere. This absolute is true, but often misunderstood.

It's the amps current output and not the watts that matter. And judging the power output of an amp by its wattage spec alone is insufficient and often misleading.

That is what I did and this is what I came up with.

I'm currently using a "16 Watt" SET tube amp to power a pair of CLSIIz's. On paper it's not supposed to work nor sound good (if it works at all)...but it does work and it sounds great.

Click to expand...

What amp is that, Craig? Just curious, being a single ended user myself. Well, make that parallel single ended i.e. SET with gobs of power (for an SET, at any rate!).

User211 said:

What amp is that, Craig? Just curious, being a single ended user myself. Well, make that parallel single ended i.e. SET with gobs of power (for an SET, at any rate!).

Click to expand...

I wondered that too Justin. It sort of looks like a Wavac, but I can't really tell from the picture. Oh - it might be an Art Audio now that I think about it. Come on Craig, spill the beans - Art Audio right?

It's a lousy photo but you're right. It's an Art Audio Carissa (Signature version) with Shuguang 845M tubes. It's a single-ended, transformer-coupled, pure class "A", triode stereo amp. Even though its rated a mere 16 wpc it is is "High Current which is one of the great attributes of Joe Fratus (Art Audio) designed amps. However, I have no idea how much current or amps it puts out but it seems to have enough power to do the job and is not at all lacking in the bass department.

I've used this amp on the Aeon i, Summits, Sonus Faber - Cremona's and these CLS's. This particular amp seems to break the 2 paradigms of "tubes don't do bass very well" and "judging the power of an amp by wattage alone". The downside is that the supply of 845 tubes is currently less than optimum right now causing the prices to be inflated. However a good 845 tube should last many years.

By the way, I can attest first-hand that Joe Fratus provides some of the best customer service in the audio industry. He definitely takes good care of his customers; Akin to ML's Jim Powers.

You know what - there are too many fashions in audio too. Sometimes I think we're just a bunch of sheep.

These fashions are then taken by some people as "givens" when in fact, there are many ways to go about it.

I have to say after many tears of trial and error there is no absolute formula - but I ask myself often what has really changed when you can get a nice Lenco, a half decent arm, whatever cartridge you fancy, old or new, and the front end vintage vinyl can still sing with the best.

Then you get a decent tube amp, with some current that is configured to drive low impedance. Add a laptop and a PS Audio DAC 3, or something similar, place your favourite ML's in the right position for your room ....... audio heaven.

Oh, I forgot to pour a nice malt!.

Now add your silver cables, isolation devices, balanced power, etc. etc. and try and remember what the original recipe above sounded like!

My little creed developed over time is, change one thing only at a time, it may not be better, but it can be different. Pay attention to the front end and the speakers for defining the character of your sound. Amps, cables and so on can change the character, but really they should get out of the way.

Again, as time marches on I get to appreciate the aesthetics of my equipment and the elegance of design - a sort of audio-jewellery approach for middle aged males to go with the the other ML crisis!

Steve

Hi Steve,

I totally agree with you regarding swapping out and listening to only one new "element" at a time. As one's system becomes more articulate and you know it's specific sound as a whole, this approach ensures that you can trully evaluate what that one change did to the overall system sound.

Of course, there's always the issue of "breakin" if that is relevant to the new addition.

It's what I've done with my systems over the past 30 years plus and it has never let me down.

GG

JonFo said:

The room influences the sound more than any other element in the chain.

If you doubt that, then please put on a pair of headphones, listen to a track, then re-listen to that track without the headphones.​

Click to expand...

I have to dispute this one Jon - in my view what influences the sound more than anything else is the inherent limitations in recording technology available today.

amey01 said:

I have to dispute this one Jon - in my view what influences the sound more than anything else is the inherent limitations in recording technology available today.

If in doubt, just put a live band in your room and hear the difference. The live band can play through your same amps and also through your 'Logans. Only difference - the source is a mic rather than a recording.​

Click to expand...

Sorry Amey, no sale on that one with me.

If you said vs a live instrument, well sure, recording / reproduction tech is not up that.
So unless we're using my new patent-pending 3D sound holography recording-playback system, that feat is not yet possible.

But going through a mic deck, and being reproduced by the speakers in the same room? The diff would barely be noticeable, if that.

I've been in a recording studio, listened to a recording process live on the cans, then heard the mix down as the engineer processed and enhanced the recording. Every time the 'dry' track played, it was just as I heard it the first time 'live'. This was a high-quality Pro-tools HD running these tracks at 24/96 recording resolution.
I'm heading to that studio today to see my friend, who is also an avid audiophile, I'll ask him about this and get his viewpoint.

When the room can cause swings of 20+dB in frequency response, when bass resonances can add >800ms to the decay, when added reflections can distort imaging, and also affect FR, that would all seem to outweigh any possible limitation vs a 24/96 , or even a 16/44 digital recording.

If you have a recording you feel has greater errors than those, well, I’d quit buying from that label

amey01 said:

I have to dispute this one Jon - in my view what influences the sound more than anything else is the inherent limitations in recording technology available today.

If in doubt, just put a live band in your room and hear the difference. The live band can play through your same amps and also through your 'Logans. Only difference - the source is a mic rather than a recording.​

Click to expand...

And the sound of the live band would also be limited and adversely affected by those same room acoustics. Since we can't do anything yet about the limitations of our recording technologies, it is probably best to focus on those things we can actually use to make a difference in our own systems. Acoustics is certainly at the top of that list to me.

JonFo said:

But going through a mic deck, and being reproduced by the speakers in the same room? The diff would barely be noticeable, if that.

Click to expand...

This is the bit I dispute. I think it would be totally noticeable. Now to be fair, I haven't done this in my room, but I'm going on my experience at live music venues where the majority of what I hear is the PA system or ALL the PA system. (that is - an experience in a shopping centre where the band was far removed from where I was hearing the PA system). It sounds totally different (and much better).

I guess the question is - am I hearing a limitation in the venue's source (as opposed to their amps/speakers) or is it a limitation with the recording itself.

As far as I'm concerned, I've heard too much of a fundamental difference (and I've heard this too many times) for me to believe it is the source component - it is the actual recording!