What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[Brian]

The people who were genuinely interested in audio gear have already abandoned this thread, driven out by the formula-worshippers

This is an example of the hostile attitude driving people away. You truly believe that people who are "genuinely interested in audio gear" must by definition agree with your philosophy, and everyone else's interest is faked?

I've been nudged into another thread. Was that you, by any chance?

I split off-topic discussion unrelated to audio systems people own into another thread. I also said so publicly.

[Brian]

As for the second point, in that other thread, which, by the way, ended up being attributed to me although I never created it, there are constant reproaches that we have strayed from discussing audio. But why should that be?

The split topic software function works like this. We find the first post that appeared to branch into a fully new topic, in this case, the first post that did not discuss audio equipment at all but introduced the new topic of Heisenberg. From there, the software displays two columns, A and B, one for the old thread and one for the new. The moderator then goes through and decides which thread each post should go into.

Through this process, our priority is returning the original thread back to the topic. I really don't care who is "attributed" with the new thread.

[AnotherSpin]

We do hear, from time to time, the solemn assertion that an appreciation for fine, high-fidelity audio requires a bank account of similarly lofty proportions. And yes, some contraptions do come with price tags that suggest they were forged from unicorn horn and moonbeams. But let us not be too easily dazzled. Much of what is considered "high-end" is, in fact, rather modest in cost. Some of it, delightfully, is free.

Take George Cardas's rather clever method of placing loudspeakers according to the golden ratio. I have tried it myself - no mysticism required - and the results were quite striking. In fact, very large, human-height loudspeakers were positioned in the living room in this way for many years, and I have successfully applied the method with other speakers as well. It costs nothing to experiment anyway. Naturally, if your speakers are the acoustic equivalent of soggy cardboard, no amount of mathematical elegance will save them.

Incidentally, the golden ratio is not confined to speaker placement. Years ago, I ordered custom equipment stands designed on the basis of the same proportions. I also took care to use acoustically neutral materials, in the hope of banishing unwanted vibrations.

Method is here: https://www.cardas.com/system-setup

Added: I only remembered after I posted. George Cardas's company produces cables built according to his method, including digital ones, of course .

[StudioGuy]

Take George Cardas's rather clever method of placing loudspeakers according to the golden ratio. I have tried it myself - no mysticism required - and the results were quite striking. In fact, very large, human-height loudspeakers were positioned in the living room in this way for many years, and I have successfully applied the method with other speakers as well.

...

The "rather clever method" to which you're referring was tested out in the 1950s, decades before the Cardas company was even founded. Even the Ancient Greeks were using the golden ratio formula for acoustics ~300 BCE. There are various formulas for speaker positioning, for example: "The rule of thirds", the "38% rule" and the golden ratio, all of them will typically be an improvement over just placing the speakers next to a wall but none of them are really a "rule". There are many factors at play; the speakers themselves, room size, shape and dimensions, the materials the walls, floor, ceiling are made of, etc. In most cases, any of these formulas may act as a good starting point but will probably not provide optimal placement, depending on the mentioned factors.

In any discussion of high fidelity audio systems, room acoustics is usually the largest determining factor but is often ignored or at least not given significant consideration. Audiophiles in particular tend to focus on equipment that typically doesn't even affect sound at all (most DACs, cables, fuses, etc.) but ignore room acoustics, which does hugely affect sound. Relatively modestly priced speakers in an appropriately treated/corrected room, will virtually always outperform even the most expensive audiophile speakers in an untreated/uncorrected room. The equipment to test/diagnose a room's acoustics is cheap (although the learning curve is quite high) and treating or at least improving the diagnosed issues is typically not onerous.

[ritter]

Now that this thread has returned to its topic, the discussion of audio equipment, in a more civil way, we ask all members to refrain from ad hominem arguments or personal attacks (ironic or otherwise). Let us all prevent this thread from descending again into nastiness.

(N.B.: The post immediately before this one has been edited by the moderation in light of the point made above. And so has the following post. Thanks for your understanding!)

[AnotherSpin]

...

The "rather clever method" to which you're referring was tested out in the 1950s, decades before the Cardas company was even founded. Even the Ancient Greeks were using the golden ratio formula for acoustics ~300 BCE. There are various formulas for speaker positioning, for example: "The rule of thirds", the "38% rule" and the golden ratio, all of them will typically be an improvement over just placing the speakers next to a wall but none of them are really a "rule". There are many factors at play; the speakers themselves, room size, shape and dimensions, the materials the walls, floor, ceiling are made of, etc. In most cases, any of these formulas may act as a good starting point but will probably not provide optimal placement, depending on the mentioned factors.

In any discussion of high fidelity audio systems, room acoustics is usually the largest determining factor but is often ignored or at least not given significant consideration. Audiophiles in particular tend to focus on equipment that typically doesn't even affect sound at all (most DACs, cables, fuses, etc.) but ignore room acoustics, which does hugely affect sound. Relatively modestly priced speakers in an appropriately treated/corrected room, will virtually always outperform even the most expensive audiophile speakers in an untreated/uncorrected room. The equipment to test/diagnose a room's acoustics is cheap (although the learning curve is quite high) and treating or at least improving the diagnosed issues is typically not onerous.

I am not sure why it was necessary to respond with such well-known facts. ...

No one is claiming that Cardas invented the golden ratio, and the fact that the Greeks employed its proportions in architecture, for instance, is widely known. Ever since the concept of dividing speakers into a stereo pair emerged, numerous guidelines have been offered on how to position them. Yet, I learned of the application of the golden ratio to stereo placement specifically from Cardas, with whom I even had a brief correspondence on the matter long ago, though that, in truth, is hardly important.

From my experience, I have found that the Cardas method reveals its effects most clearly with large high-end speakers, and to a lesser extent with more ordinary, budget models.

[Harry]

"I collect music, not quarrels — one enriches, the other only exhausts."

"Skepticism is cheap; listening is priceless."

"I prefer resonance over noise — hence I won't join the chorus of shouting."

"You can master your science, I'll master my silence."

"Opinions may echo, but music alone endures."

"Some debates are like badly tuned instruments: best left unplayed."

"I have no need to convince those who measure what they cannot hear. I'll simply continue enjoying music as it is meant to be — alive — while others may remain content debating silence."

"I notice that when evidence and experience fail to persuade, some turn to volume instead. I'll leave them to enjoy the sound of their own voices — I prefer finer acoustics."

[StudioGuy]

I am not sure why it was necessary to respond with such well-known facts. ...

From my experience, I have found that the Cardas method reveals its effects most clearly with large high-end speakers, and to a lesser extent with more ordinary, budget models.

...

The facts and experience dictate that speaker size is just one of various/numerous variables and that the golden ratio method of placement is rarely optimal (though can be a good starting point). I've worked with many very high-end (high fidelity) speakers/systems and never was the golden ratio employed. If anything, it is more appropriate for smaller more budget speakers/monitors, although again, that is extremely variable.

[AnotherSpin]

...

The facts and experience dictate that speaker size is just one of various/numerous variables and that the golden ratio method of placement is rarely optimal (though can be a good starting point). I've worked with many very high-end (high fidelity) speakers/systems and never was the golden ratio employed. If anything, it is more appropriate for smaller more budget speakers/monitors, although again, that is extremely variable.

Nobody claims that the speaker placement method proposed by Cardas is optimal. All I said was that it worked for me, with a very noticeable positive result. The effect was especially clear with fairly large and heavy speakers in a rather big room. With smaller speakers, the positive effect was less pronounced. I wouldn't be surprised if other placement methods work better for other enthusiasts. The whole point of my post was that experimenting with speaker placement costs nothing extra and is within everyone's reach.

It is evident that the Cardas setup, with speakers positioned well away from the walls, is hardly practical in small, cluttered rooms where everything tends to be pushed into corners and pressed against the walls. Nor should one expect such arrangements in professional studios, where space is limited and, more importantly, there is little point in using large loudspeakers of outstanding audio quality. After all, the sound is mixed for the ears of the general listener, who will in any case rely on modest playback systems.

[StudioGuy]

Nobody claims that the speaker placement method proposed by Cardas is optimal. All I said was that it worked for me, with a very noticeable positive result. The effect was especially clear with fairly large and heavy speakers in a rather big room. With smaller speakers, the positive effect was less pronounced. I wouldn't be surprised if other placement methods work better for other enthusiasts.

...

It is evident that the Cardas setup, with speakers positioned well away from the walls, is hardly practical in small, cluttered rooms where everything tends to be pushed into corners and pressed against the walls. Nor should one expect such arrangements in professional studios, where space is limited and, more importantly, there is little point in using large loudspeakers of outstanding audio quality. After all, the sound is mixed for the ears of the general listener, who will in any case rely on modest playback systems.

...

In actual fact the exact opposite of your assertions are true. It is in fact the case that commercial studios require the utmost audio quality/fidelity from their reproduction (monitoring) system and indeed spend hundreds of thousands/millions on highly accomplished acousticians to design and implement the very best custom systems. It is imperative that tiny details that would be inaudible on consumer/audiophile systems are audible to engineer when recording, because minuscule/inaudible faults can become large, obvious errors during the mixing and mastering stages. Additionally, the sound is absolutely not "mixed for the ears of the average listeners", it's mixed for the ears of the engineers, producer and musicians/conductor in an extremely highly specified listening environment. Ultimately, the mastered mix is designed to sound good/optimal on the range of equipment used by the target demographic, which in many cases will include "top of the line" audiophile systems, and therefore the monitoring systems have to be (and are) superior to those systems.

Commercial studios generally do not use the golden ratio for speaker placement, not because of lack of space but because it is not optimal. They spend millions and even tens of millions but can only afford "small cluttered rooms" ... really? ...

...

[ritter]

I insist, a discussion on the topic at hand is fine and dandy, but personal and ad hominem attacks are unacceptable. I urge members to lower the tone of the discussion, or we will be forced to lock this thread again. 

Is that clear? 

[drogulus]

I urge members to lower the tone of the discussion, or we will be forced to lock this thread again.

     I once owned a Musical Fidelity X10-D.



     It has tubes in it to buffer the signal from a thing to another thing. I think it looks cool.
   

[AnotherSpin]

...

In actual fact the exact opposite of your assertions are true. It is in fact the case that commercial studios require the utmost audio quality/fidelity from their reproduction (monitoring) system and indeed spend hundreds of thousands/millions on highly accomplished acousticians to design and implement the very best custom systems. It is imperative that tiny details that would be inaudible on consumer/audiophile systems are audible to engineer when recording, because minuscule/inaudible faults can become large, obvious errors during the mixing and mastering stages. Additionally, the sound is absolutely not "mixed for the ears of the average listeners", it's mixed for the ears of the engineers, producer and musicians/conductor in an extremely highly specified listening environment. Ultimately, the mastered mix is designed to sound good/optimal on the range of equipment used by the target demographic, which in many cases will include "top of the line" audiophile systems, and therefore the monitoring systems have to be (and are) superior to those systems.

Commercial studios generally do not use the golden ratio for speaker placement, not because of lack of space but because it is not optimal. They spend millions and even tens of millions but can only afford "small cluttered rooms" ... really? ...

...

...

In the commercial studio, bristling with elaborate monitoring systems, engineers are no longer listening to music, they are manufacturing it. Naturally, no one would dream of applying Cardas's placement method to studio monitors; these are active nearfield loudspeakers designed for a flat, uncoloured frequency response, and the priorities lie elsewhere. The moment a track arrives at mastering it is bulldozed by brick-wall limiters and smothered beneath relentless compression, for the hollow victory of the loudness war takes precedence over preserving delicate nuance. What begins as a finely sculpted performance too often emerges battered, its subtleties sacrificed upon the altar of sheer decibels. Far more important is how the final product will sound through a car stereo, cheap earbuds, or a budget home system. This applies first and foremost to recordings of popular music, yet even among labels devoted to serious music, not all place sound quality at the forefront.

[AnotherSpin]

Caveat: Not intended for studios, nor for theoreticians armed with textbooks. This is strictly for those devoted to the pursuit of musical truth (a rare species, but we persist).

Another domain that may prove both intriguing and remarkably cost-effective for enthusiasts of superior sound reproduction is the control of unwanted mechanical vibrations. While often overlooked by the casual listener, who may still believe that "plug and play" is the summit of wisdom, this aspect of audio setup can yield transformative results without the need for a second mortgage.

For quite some time now, many commercial loudspeakers, and increasingly other audio components, have been sold with spikes or mounted on three-point supports, a welcome improvement, over the widespread practice of perching computer speakers on stacks of books or, heaven help us, printer boxes.

Among the ready-made solutions, IsoAcoustics products are fine example, offering well-engineered stands that address vibration with admirable precision and leave one's wallet mercifully intact. I have used these particular stands under small speakers with excellent results: https://isoacoustics.com/home-audio-isolation-products/orea-series/.

More entertaining still was my foray into the land of supports incorporating ball bearings, a deceptively simple yet highly effective method. While certain high-end commercial offerings, such as the rather sophisticated designs from Symposium, command a premium (no link here, lest I provoke the inevitable barbed remarks from some participants), bespoke alternatives can be fashioned at a fraction of the cost, often with results that rival the commercial counterparts. The sonic effect is not academic at all. One might liken it to what Harry earlier in this thread described as the near-magical "disappearance" of the loudspeakers, as if the sound were simply suspended in the air with no visible means of support. The photo is from the internet, though it is uncannily similar to the bespoke items made for me:
 


For those wishing to dig deeper, I recommend the writings of Barry Diament, a respected figure in music recording. His article, available here: https://barrydiamentaudio.com/vibration.htm, offers both theoretical insight and some practical guidance. Barry is a kind and approachable person as well, and he generously shared valuable design insights with me by email.

And finally, a curiosity: more recently I stumbled upon a concept from a Finnish inventor: http://www.artificialintelligence.fi/hifi_damping_calculator_en.html. I have not tested it myself, but it struck me as novel and well worth consideration. In this field, after all, curiosity is often the first step toward revelation.

[StudioGuy]

I insist, a discussion on the topic at hand is fine and dandy, but personal and ad hominem attacks are unacceptable.

My apologies. It's difficult not to be somewhat insulting when someone is blatantly making up falsehoods. If a bunch of assertions are not only false but so false they're pretty much the exact opposite of the actual truth/facts, how does one refute those falsehoods and present the actual facts without it appearing at least somewhat insulting? I will try harder though.

In the commercial studio, bristling with elaborate monitoring systems, engineers are no longer listening to music, they are manufacturing it.

Why would a commercial studio be "bristling with elaborate monitoring systems" if the "engineers are no longer listening to music", why would they have any monitoring system at all, let alone be "bristling with elaborate" systems if they are not listening? As already explained, the engineers are listening to the music/recording in painfully fine detail, far more so than any consumer can, they are also of course manufacturing the music recordings, as has always been the case.

Naturally, no one would dream of applying Cardas's placement method to studio monitors; these are active nearfield loudspeakers designed for a flat, uncoloured frequency response, and the priorities lie elsewhere.

So now it's just "active nearfield loudspeakers" and not "elaborate monitoring systems "? You were right the first time, commercial studios do indeed have "elaborate monitoring systems ", typically 3 systems: A "Main" system comprised of large full range monitors around which the studio has been professionally acoustically designed. An "Alt" nearfield system which does NOT have a flat full range response and a "reference" system which comprises the very poorest quality speakers (from say a laptop or TV), to reference against the very cheapest consumer reproduction equipment. Ironically, of all of these systems, the one most likely to comply with the golden ratio placement is in fact the nearfield monitors!

The moment a track arrives at mastering it is bulldozed by brick-wall limiters and smothered beneath relentless compression, for the hollow victory of the loudness war takes precedence over preserving delicate nuance. What begins as a finely sculpted performance too often emerges battered, its subtleties sacrificed upon the altar of sheer decibels. Far more important is how the final product will sound through a car stereo, cheap earbuds, or a budget home system. This applies first and foremost to recordings of popular music, yet even among labels devoted to serious music, not all place sound quality at the forefront.

Unfortunately, Not a single sentence in the above quote is true/correct.

If anyone is interested in a serious discussion on what the loudness war actually is, the monitoring systems in studios or anything to do with the process of how recordings are made then I'm happy to oblige. I have over 30 years experience as an engineer, I've worked in some of the world's top commercial studios, with some of the world's top musicians and orchestras and in many of the world's famous venues. Although it maybe appropriate to start a new thread for such discussions and obviously, questions are better than made-up false assertions.

Caveat: Not intended for studios, nor for theoreticians armed with textbooks. This is strictly for those devoted to the pursuit of musical truth (a rare species, but we persist).

And where does the "musical truth" (or anything else) in the recordings you're reproducing come from if not from studios and engineers (armed with theory and textbooks)? How can you pursue "musical truth" unless engineers/producers (in studios) put it into the recordings you're reproducing?

Regarding the rest: Why only promote the magic ball bearings, what about audiophile rocks, cable lifters, audiophile CD de-magnetisers, green sharpie pens, audiophile crystals and all the other snake oil audiophile products?

[ritter]

OK guys, here's the deal (and this is meant specifically, but not exclusively, for @AnotherSpin and @StudioGuy , as this thread has become a sort of ping-pong match between these two members):

We have three options here:

1) You expose your opinions, thoughts and positions WITHOUT ATTACKING, DENIGRATING, RIDICULING OR INSULTING OTHER POSTERS. For instance, when quoting another member, saying e.g. "this statement is incorrect / false because of x, y or z" is perfectly fine. But saying, "you promote falsehoods/ you don't know what you're talking about / you are a nonbeliever who relies on textbooks" and other such hostile remarks is not OK. Discussing ideas is fine, attacking people or judging their listening habits or questioning their intentions is not.

2) You keep on as you've been doing until now, and I (or my fellow moderators) will continue editing your posts to remove hostile personal remarks towards other members. TBH, I'm growing tired of this, so the result would be number 3 below, namely

3) The thread is again locked for an indeterminate period.

It's up to you.

Thanks.

[Florestan]

https://barrydiamentaudio.com/vibration.htm,

I have two comments on the above text.

1. How come that seismic vibrations have such a dramatic impact on the electric signals of audio/video equipment, yet none at all on the electric signals of other, just as or even more sensitive equipment, such as medical monitoring/life-sustaining systems or air traffic control radars, in which the slightest malfunction can make the difference between life and death? Heck, how come that our own hearts and brains are not at permanent risk of malfunction because of their electric signals being altered and distorted by seismic vibrations?

2. Assuming everything the guy says is true, floating the equipment solves only half of the problem. Why? Because when a room vibrates, the air within vibrates as well. Now, the frequency of the sound-producing air vibrations is different than the frequency of the seismically-induced air vibrations, resulting in interference and therefore altered and distorted sound. So unless and until he finds a way to float the air itself, the resulting sound will be far from optimal. And that is not even taking into consideration that the listener must be floated as well, in order to escape the distortions induced by seismic vibrations in the functioning of their ears.

[AnotherSpin]

My apologies. It's difficult not to be somewhat insulting when someone is blatantly making up falsehoods. If a bunch of assertions are not only false but so false they're pretty much the exact opposite of the actual truth/facts, how does one refute those falsehoods and present the actual facts without it appearing at least somewhat insulting? I will try harder though.Why would a commercial studio be "bristling with elaborate monitoring systems" if the "engineers are no longer listening to music", why would they have any monitoring system at all, let alone be "bristling with elaborate" systems if they are not listening? As already explained, the engineers are listening to the music/recording in painfully fine detail, far more so than any consumer can, they are also of course manufacturing the music recordings, as has always been the case.So now it's just "active nearfield loudspeakers" and not "elaborate monitoring systems "? You were right the first time, commercial studios do indeed have "elaborate monitoring systems ", typically 3 systems: A "Main" system comprised of large full range monitors around which the studio has been professionally acoustically designed. An "Alt" nearfield system which does NOT have a flat full range response and a "reference" system which comprises the very poorest quality speakers (from say a laptop or TV), to reference against the very cheapest consumer reproduction equipment. Ironically, of all of these systems, the one most likely to comply with the golden ratio placement is in fact the nearfield monitors!Unfortunately, Not a single sentence in the above quote is true/correct.

If anyone is interested in a serious discussion on what the loudness war actually is, the monitoring systems in studios or anything to do with the process of how recordings are made then I'm happy to oblige. I have over 30 years experience as an engineer, I've worked in some of the world's top commercial studios, with some of the world's top musicians and orchestras and in many of the world's famous venues. Although it maybe appropriate to start a new thread for such discussions and obviously, questions are better than made-up false assertions.And where does the "musical truth" (or anything else) in the recordings you're reproducing come from if not from studios and engineers (armed with theory and textbooks)? How can you pursue "musical truth" unless engineers/producers (in studios) put it into the recordings you're reproducing?

Regarding the rest: Why only promote the magic ball bearings, what about audiophile rocks, cable lifters, audiophile CD de-magnetisers, green sharpie pens, audiophile crystals and all the other snake oil audiophile products?

I gather this account was created expressly to stir things up in this thread. In any case, it's conspicuously absent from other discussions, unless, of course, it belongs to someone operating under a different alias elsewhere. Mildly amusing, I suppose, but nothing more. This will be my final address to whoever's behind it. I'm not interested in your commentary, nor do I find it of any use. So, if restraint isn't your strong suit, by all means, carry on. But I won't be responding or engaging with you any further.

[StudioGuy]

I gather this account was created expressly to stir things up in this thread.

This statement is false. I created this account because I was originally a formally trained classical musician, then a professional orchestral musician for several years and this is a classical music forum is it not? I've posted to this thread because it was the most recent in the list and because I have a great deal of professional knowledge/experience with audio systems and the audio recording/reproduction process. I have been posting the actual facts as opposed to false assertions and obviously that could not "stir things up" except maybe for those posting false assertions.

In any case, it's conspicuously absent from other discussions, unless, of course, it belongs to someone operating under a different alias elsewhere.

I have read other discussions here but haven't yet contributed, simply because my limited time has been taken up with this thread and I haven't come across other threads I wished to contribute to, yet.

You seem to have ignored the instructions of the moderator and are yet again attacking me/my motives. Are you incapable of addressing the points/facts?

[Harry]

Ohhh for God's sake close this thread