If you don't have a wide sweet spot, are you really an audiophile?


Hi, it’s me, professional audio troll. I’ve been thinking about something as my new home listening room comes together:

The glory of having a wide sweet spot.

We focus far too much on the dentist chair type of listener experience. A sound which is truly superb only in one location. Then we try to optimize everything exactly in that virtual shoebox we keep our heads in. How many of us look for and optimize our listening experience to have a wide sweet spot instead?

I am reminded of listening to the Magico S1 Mk II speakers. While not flawless one thing they do exceptionally well is, in a good room, provide a very good, stable stereo image across almost any reasonable listening location. Revel’s also do this. There’s no sudden feeling of the image clicking when you are exactly equidistant from the two speakers. The image is good and very stable. Even directly in front of one speaker you can still get a sense of what is in the center and opposite sides. You don’t really notice a loss of focus when off axis like you can in so many setups.

Compare and contrast this with the opposite extreme, Sanders' ESL’s, which are OK off axis but when you are sitting in the right spot you suddenly feel like you are wearing headphones. The situation is very binary. You are either in the sweet spot or you are not.

From now on I’m declaring that I’m going all-in on wide-sweet spot listening. Being able to relax on one side of the couch or another, or meander around the house while enjoying great sounding music is a luxury we should all attempt to recreate.
erik_squires
There is a saying that people that understand a topic well can explain it in the simplest terms.

I am not sure there is a saying for the opposite, but I can show you some examples :-)

 Report this
You are right this times audio2design.... 

It is not always possible to reduce a very complex problem in simple term.... The tensor curvature problem in geometry cannot be simplified....especially not here...

The "timbre" comcept and perception is in the same order...

But some here are very able to explain it with 2 words...

Frequency response only.....




I've never understood what Mahgister was talking about, especially concerning timbre. I assumed what we heard in relation to timbre was on the recording. I'm glad someone could decipher his tome like posts.
I'll give my layman version, timbre is how I can tell a trumpet from a clarinet playing the same notes. What acoustic embedding has to do with it I don't know I don't even know what acoustic embedding even is much less the other two though I have tried to figure out what he's talking about.
Range between tonal and noiselike character

- We have no control during playback, except w.r.t. dynamic range of our system, i.e. potential volume and noise floor, the rest is inherent in the recording.
How do i control this attribute in my room?

Controls of mechanical and electrical and acoustical noise floor....With the many homemade devices you mocked  and whichi used successfully  at NO COST....

Time envelope in terms of rise, duration, and decay (ADSR, which stands for "attack, decay, sustain, release")

- With the exception of decay, which is room dependent, we have very limited control of this on playback
controls of decay with MY acoustical settings is KEY here.... In my room...

Changes both of spectral envelope (formant-glide) and fundamental frequency (micro-intonation)

- Again frequency response
Yes frequency modified response potentials of my room by my Helmholtz tubes and pipes modifying the original  response of my room....



Prefix, or onset of a sound, quite dissimilar to the ensuing lasting vibration

- Again, either in the recording or affected by the room.
Precisely the acoustical controls in my room play a greater part here also than the source recording Why?


Because the best source in the world with the best system will NEVER give a good and natural perception of timbre in a BAD ROOM....





Have you forget the CRUX of this discussion possessed by the urgency to be right against all at all cost repeating this mantra of frequency response in the face of a complex problem ?


The recording source is one HALF of the story when we speak about timbre perception, the most important half is the acoustical control of the room which will permet or not a good or very good RECREATION of the information encoded in the source....Remember that this information encoded in the source is NEVER complete nor perfect by reason of trade-off locations and types of mic. in use by the recording engineer esthetical or practical choices....

Then playback experience can never be equal to lived experience...
This is the reason why RECREATION of timbre perception being a complex acoustical and fundamental experience is the BENCHMARK test if we want to know if our system is good or not.....

If you're listening through headphones then you can toss out the room and it's all up to the equipment. I think you're over reaching with room treatments. I'm not saying some are important to smooth out the FR but I'll take DSP to finish the job.