Are loudness and tone controls necessary?

[sfogg]

"1. Head shifting and brain dealing with the shifting sonic panorama is very much part of life - "

Of course it is, that is what we use to localize sources. We basically triangulate sound from our ears and strength that by moving our heads to recheck/confirm.

"I think our brains are wired to deal with this and have therefore never been convinced this is a real issue to a listener."

I disagree with that. In real life a person is talking from one point in space. If you shift your head you have the timing differences (and level differences) from one point reaching two ears... this is how we localize a sound. When you move you still image the sound to the same point in space.

However... when you have one voice being reproduced from actually two widely spaced sources consider what happens when you move you head. Now you have two sources with four different timings to your ears and two different sources of SPL. When you shift laterally say to the right the right source increases in SPL while the left decreases. At the same time the four timing differences go alter helter skelter (your hear the right speaker sooner to the left and the Haas precedence effect kicks in) and the result is the phantom image shifts positions toward the speaker you are moving toward.

Simple experiment to try.

Set your balance control all the way to the right or left (or unplug a speaker). Play a mono recording of voice. Now move around the room... do you still localize the voice to the same point no matter where you are in the room?

Now play that same recording over two speakers. Move around the room... does your localization of where the voice is originating from shift as you move around?

"2. As it happens if you are listening to a live singer and shift position there will similarly be a shift of sound patterns around you"

Of course... that is how you will still localize the singer to the same place as you move around.

"Whether the sound emanates from a single point - from 2 points, multiple points or from all around room reflections I think doesn't matter other than for the mathematical complexity of the analysis."

It very much matters. Please try the experiment above.

"I have always wondered whether these, in fact, suffer more or less from motion of the listener."

Less, and by a large amount. With a hard center your frontal imaging is much more stable with different listening positions. I can sit in front of L or R and still have vocals coming from dead center in the sound stage for example. Read the papers by Klipsch, he talks about this too though his way of deriving the center speaker won't be as stable as the way I'm doing it.

"It would seem to my simple brain that in this scenario the slightest movement would yield dramatic changes - more so than for 2 channel."

If you are ever 'over here' let me know and you are welcome to hear this for yourself.

"It is interesting to see mono come up as the logical conclusion for speakers from this statement."

Yes, a single speaker reproducing vocals *is* the logical conclusion from this statement.

It is called a center channel.

Shawn

[sfogg]

"I think our brains are wired to deal with this and have therefore never been convinced this is a real issue to a listener."

BTW, wanted to mention... are brains are wired to deal with our own position shifting.

However, our brains are also wired for what occurs everyday in real life. That being each and every sound having a single point of origin.

Not two points of origin and 'Phantom imaging' between them. That is an artificial construct that doesn't really occur in the real world. As such our brain doesn't deal with it all that well and can pick up the artificiality of it fairly easily.... for example the listener moving lateraly and the image shifts/falls apart.

How much this bothers people seems to depend somewhat upon the listener. One subtle way this affects some is listener fatigue... the brain gets tired of trying to construct a 'solid' image from acoustic queues that the brain knows are at odds with each other.

Shawn

[Erik Mandaville]

Max:

"In a modern surround sound system with, say, 3 speakers up front and 2 at the rear (a relatively simple system these days) there is sound firing at you from effectively all directions immediately and from relfections unknown."

This has not been my experience at all. I've mentioned previously that the overall effect is quite unlike your description above in that it's very subtle and natural.

Erik

[edwinr]

Umfortunately I have to rush off to work...

For Shawn I had two DSP providers. The first was a Yamaha Z1, which I didn't like. The second was an Onkyo DS-989, which I did like.

Also I have given some more thought to this whole DSP thing. I made the comment that I found my former system ultimately 'tiring'. Why would this be?

Answer... Because I am giving the brain more information to process. Maybe all these aural localisation clues from all around us tend to tirre us. Our brains are working overtime and while initially appealing, listening to the big sound for long periods of time just wears us out.

That could be why reverting to 2 channel is so much more relaxing. We're not working so hard to enjoy it.

I know this tends to contradict my previous argument, but I thought I'd throw that in for what it's worth.

[sfogg]

"The second was an Onkyo DS-989, which I did like."

Looks like the 'best' mode that would have had for processing music would be Dolby Pro-Logic. Which frankly stinks on music. It collapses the soundstage into the center channel abd has pretty bad steering between L/C/R. The mono surround channel is artificial sounding since correlated ambience (mono) can't occur in a real hall.

" I made the comment that I found my former system ultimately 'tiring'. Why would this be?"

If you were using Dolby Pro Logic on music I wouldn't be surprised if it was tiring to listen to. There are, dramatically, better methods available beyond that one.

"Maybe all these aural localisation clues from all around us tend to tirre us. "

You are surrounded by sounds all around you every day of your life. The ear/brain has no problem dealing with it. I have no problems whatsoever listening to my system for long stretches of time. I find it very relaxing.

One possible thing that does trip up some people... their brain has a hard time rectifying the aural 'picture' of the room they are hearing vs. what their eyes are telling them about the room. The ears say concert hall (or whatever), their eyes say living room. If you ever spend any time listening to a surround system again try doing it with the lights dimmed or your eyes closed.

Though with DPL it doesn't do a good job with the recordings ambience in the first place so it may not have been that. Might just have been the artificial sound of DPL on music in the first place.

"That could be why reverting to 2 channel is so much more relaxing. We're not working so hard to enjoy it."

When it comes to phantom imaging vs. a discrete source your brain works harder on the phantom image as it is trying to put together conflicting pieces of information into a sonic picture.

Shawn

[Parrot]

Using Digital Signal Processing to overcome the mastering engineer's processing is similar to continuing to drink more after a bender to avoid a hangover. You're not going to see clearly until you're sober.

[SET12]

No disrespect for anyone here! but I thought this was a 2-Channel forum here? You can debut the Multi channel logic view all day! and the center as well with many merits to both sides.

Some of us feel that to get the performance of two channel from multi channel is just cost prohibitive one could even argue that the performance of a multi-channel system for the same funds will still out perform 2-channel. Listening is an event for some and therefore we sit in a chair and listen My stage is at times so wide, that I have to turn my neck some 45 degrees in either direction and sometimes imformation is literally in back of me or passing thru my head I have no interest in listening to tiny point sources I am interested in image stability but as I have said electronics very widely as well as speaker systems many people prefer to pursue the two channel method and are interested in harmonics and decays and the recorded room ambiance this is why I am into tube gear and why I have no interest in solid state. I might add that some of friends that have multi-channel equipment are just dumping the stuff they are just tired of it and its expense because they take 2-channel more seriously in persuit of their bliss. I guess it may boil down to what is one man or womens loss is another ones gain for multi-channel!

SET12

[Erik Mandaville]

SET12:

Topics tend to vary in this forum as much a electronics and individual preferences.

BTW: I have over 20 tubes in our listening room right now, and I love surround sound. Some music we have does still sound better in stereo, and I have the option to listen to it that way if I want ....which I often do.

It doesn't necessarily have to be exclusively one way or another. Our Lexicon processer features a better sounding two channel line stage than a few vacuum tube designs I've made over the years, and I have no problem using it. 10 years ago, everything under the sun had to be a tube-based. My thinking has changed since then, and although I still very much enjoy the sound of tubes, and am in fact in the middle of building a pair of PP 6L6 monoblocks right now, I would rather not have something as simple as an output device (tube, transistor, or whatever) dictate the way I listen to music and movie soundtracks. I can and do enjoy both. The least expensive amps I have (3 channel Teac digital) are also among the best I have heard, and they are used for our surrounds, as well as for the main stereo pair when I feel like using them for that.

Erik

[SET12]

SET12:

Topics tend to vary in this forum as much a electronics and individual preferences.

BTW: I have over 20 tubes in our listening room right now, and I love surround sound. Some music we have does still sound better in stereo, and I have the option to listen to it that way if I want ....which I often do.

It doesn't necessarily have to be exclusively one way or another. Our Lexicon processer features a better sounding two channel line stage than a few vacuum tube designs I've made over the years, and I have no problem using it. 10 years ago, everything under the sun had to be a tube-based. My thinking has changed since then, and although I still very much enjoy the sound of tubes, and am in fact in the middle of building a pair of PP 6L6 monoblocks right now, I would rather not have something as simple as an output device (tube, transistor, or whatever) dictate the way I listen to music and movie soundtracks. I can and do enjoy both. The least expensive amps I have (3 channel Teac digital) are also among the best I have heard, and they are used for our surrounds, as well as for the main stereo pair when I feel like using them for that.

Erik

Thanks Erick! I will try and remember that the topics vary here.

Do you scratch build? in other words do you design your self?

I'd be interested in taking a look at your schematic one of the best 6L6 amps I have seen is a Heath Kit W5M you can take a look at the owners manual at the Heath Kit site I have a friend who owns a pair and loves them some real engineering in them.

SET12

[sunnysal]

I say PP rules over SET and don't even get me started on that SS cr*p!

I KNOW what is right.

regards suckers,

Tone-y

[edwinr]

Yeah, and idler wheel turntables are superior to belt drive turntables which are superior to direct drive turntables... Or is it the other way around? [*-)]

[SilverSport]

edwinr...I believe it IS one of those...maybe two...[]

Bill

[sunnysal]

Direct to spring coil drive is superior. No doubt.

tone-y

[Parrot]

Center imaging isn't stable with position. Move side to side (and humans unconsciously bob their head slightly to aid in localization) and the imaging shifts and the timing relationships from left speaker to each ear and right speaker to each ear changes.

The best solution is to use a good old head vice:

[stormin]

Center imaging isn't stable with position. Move side to side (and humans unconsciously bob their head slightly to aid in localization) and the imaging shifts and the timing relationships from left speaker to each ear and right speaker to each ear changes.

The best solution is to use a good old head vice:

LMAO. Is there a catalog for those?

[SET12]

I say PP rules over SET and don't even get me started on that SS cr*p!

I KNOW what is right.

regards suckers,

Tone-y

NOT!

There is good and bad in both!

I suggest you give a good listen to the Cary single-ended 805 Mono Blocks equiped with the 211 Transmitting tube.

No one that I have ever had in my home has ever prefered PP over the SET that I have and that includes Musicans, and Recording Engineers.

SET12

[sunnysal]

SET12, My post was not meant to be taken literally. I was poking fun at the posters here who seem to think they KNOW something and the rest of us don't...SET versus PP, LP versus CD AND tone controls versus nothing are ALL IMHO stupid arguments. No one is right when trying to tell others one is better than the other. In the end the enjoyment of music is a highly personal thing thus the selection of components to reproduce music is largely a subjective matter. I chafe when someone tells me the tone controls are getting in the way of the music, that there is a "right" way to listen, etc., etc. sorry my attempt a sarcastic humour was lost on you. regards, tony

[SET12]

SET12, My post was not meant to be taken literally. I was poking fun at the posters here who seem to think they KNOW something and the rest of us don't...SET versus PP, LP versus CD AND tone controls versus nothing are ALL IMHO stupid arguments. No one is right when trying to tell others one is better than the other. In the end the enjoyment of music is a highly personal thing thus the selection of components to reproduce music is largely a subjective matter. I chafe when someone tells me the tone controls are getting in the way of the music, that there is a "right" way to listen, etc., etc. sorry my attempt a sarcastic humour was lost on you. regards, tony

Sunnysal Thanks,

My Humor is what some people refer to as dry! I'm lucky that I have a women in my life that finds me even remotely funny! But she does. I usually don't get envolved with humor cause I don't think I'm very good at it or even understand it at times I tend to be more engineer than a smiling consumer and even though I'm not an engineer I might have been one if things were different in my life I have some electronics training and work in the industry my strenght is Vacuum tube design which one of my former instructors told me that I knew more vacuum tube theory than any instructor in my school and this instructor was a Radar tech working with tube circuits in the Navy of course I don't know it all but I know enough to design circuits from Phono circuits to Power amps and preamps

Thanks again! I hope this gives a clearer insight of who I am.

SET12

[sunnysal]

SET12,

Posts rarely do a good job of conveying emotion. that is why one should follow humorous remakrs with smiley faces, etc. I also tend to get kind of sarcastic when these debates come up because of the religous fervor some people seem to attach to these polarizing issues.

No hard feelings I assure you and I can tell you that I love the sounds I have heard form good SET amps (I have had a few in my system for friendly shootouts with local audiophiles).

I ended up with a PP DHT amp simply because the size of the room and my listening tastes (I tend to rock from time to time) drove me towards amps with at least 10watts output and I didn't like the sound of higher power SETs as much as I did the 45, 2A3 and 300B varieties.

I also have had minimist "preamp" solutions in my system, both SS and tube based, that should have given the most direct, cleanest connection from TT or CD to my amplifier BUT I never really liked the sound as much as I did my upgraded, vintage, full featured preamp.

In the end I ALWAYS trust my ears when picking my components because, in the end, my ears are my final judges, not specs on paper or other peoples opinions, I think most people would be better served by trusting thier ears and enjoying the music instead of obsessing about purity of signal and specs.

best regards,

Tony

[SET12]

Thanks Tony! And well said! And its the same here!

SET12