[KeithEmo]

  Thanks for the reply.  I'm fairly sure the problem is with the room acoustics as the sound did not have this issue when set up in my listening room. Unfortunately, even though I spend most of my home time in the living room these days, I can't do too much with it due to the wife factor, and the odd shape of the room limits my options for speaker placement.  I suppose I was just wondering if there are any (relatively) simple acoustic treatment ideas which can target this type of deficit as I'd rather not have to go down the road of a DSP solution.  Probably related to having a lack of mid-bass is that if I play music moderately loud the upper mids, though clear, are a bit overpowering and piercing which again was not an issue in the listening room.  I also have the TV/video hooked up to these speakers and the funny thing is that the lack of mid-bass and piercing upper mids are not very apparent when watching a movie or listening to a music video.

 
Sometimes problems in that frequency range can be related to surface-cancellation and boundary effects. If so, then you might be able to find an acoustic solution that isn't too bad on WAF. For example, if you're using stands, then stands of a different height might eliminate (or shift) the problem; or, if you have bare floor directly in front of the speakers, putting a throw rug directly under or in front of them may help to eliminate a cancellation with a reflection from there (it's easy enough to try). You want to try both the points where the sound would make its first reflection off the floor on its way to the listener and directly under the speaker, where there might simply be "a standing wave" between the speaker and the floor - which can cause a cancellation or addition at one frequency.
 
The range of frequencies over which you're hearing problems have a wavelength between about three and ten feet, which means that any surface between about a foot and a half and ten feet could be related to the problem. (This puts and major surfaces in that range of distances, including the floor, walls, and even the back wall behind the speakers, under consideration. Since you're constrained in what you will be able to do, you might as well try the ones that will be easy to fix first.

)
 
The fact that the problem gets worse when you play things more loudly sort of suggests that it is specifically related to "excessive liveness" {shiny/hard surface(s)} somewhere as being a culprit.

 

[sonitus mirus]

  At the entry level, cheap receiver + cheap speaker can be pretty good too. Especially receivers with dynamicEQ. Anything above entry level, and active monitors can not be beaten at all. Makes audiophile company look like scams...

 
I saw a recent video where Ethan Winer discusses his home theater set up, and he is using 3 Mackie HR264 monitors as his left, right, and center channel speakers.  You can get the MK2 models for around $500 from some places.  That may not be quite entry level, but it isn't too expensive.  Certainly well within the reach of most consumers.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu32oisgIq0

 

[old tech]

   
Sometimes problems in that frequency range can be related to surface-cancellation and boundary effects. If so, then you might be able to find an acoustic solution that isn't too bad on WAF. For example, if you're using stands, then stands of a different height might eliminate (or shift) the problem; or, if you have bare floor directly in front of the speakers, putting a throw rug directly under or in front of them may help to eliminate a cancellation with a reflection from there (it's easy enough to try). You want to try both the points where the sound would make its first reflection off the floor on its way to the listener and directly under the speaker, where there might simply be "a standing wave" between the speaker and the floor - which can cause a cancellation or addition at one frequency.
 
The range of frequencies over which you're hearing problems have a wavelength between about three and ten feet, which means that any surface between about a foot and a half and ten feet could be related to the problem. (This puts and major surfaces in that range of distances, including the floor, walls, and even the back wall behind the speakers, under consideration. Since you're constrained in what you will be able to do, you might as well try the ones that will be easy to fix first.

)
 
The fact that the problem gets worse when you play things more loudly sort of suggests that it is specifically related to "excessive liveness" {shiny/hard surface(s)} somewhere as being a culprit.

Thanks for the tips Keith.  The room is carpeted with soft furniture, bookshelf etc.  It is also semi-open but the opening is to the side and above speaker height.  The couch is about 3.5m in front of the speakers with a wall and window directly behind it.  I might try and hang a heavier drape over the window.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Thanks for the reply.  I'm fairly sure the problem is with the room acoustics as the sound did not have this issue when set up in my listening room. Unfortunately, even though I spend most of my home time in the living room these days, I can't do too much with it due to the wife factor, and the odd shape of the room limits my options for speaker placement.  I suppose I was just wondering if there are any (relatively) simple acoustic treatment ideas which can target this type of deficit as I'd rather not have to go down the road of a DSP solution.  Probably related to having a lack of mid-bass is that if I play music moderately loud the upper mids, though clear, are a bit overpowering and piercing which again was not an issue in the listening room.  I also have the TV/video hooked up to these speakers and the funny thing is that the lack of mid-bass and piercing upper mids are not very apparent when watching a movie or listening to a music video.

Why not? It's not like you have many alternatives given the WAF

 

[old tech]

Why not?

It's not like you have many alternatives given the WAF

It probably is the best and perhaps the only solution but I prefer not to complicate the set-up.  The WAF factor is not just about aesthetics but also being simple to use, given the living room is used mainly for TV/video.  At the moment it is a simple set up only requiring a push of one button on the speaker's remote which also controls volume.  I have a listening room for my other stereo.

 

[veril459]

There has actually been a double blind study on the subject, audiophiles can not distinguish between SACD and regular CD quality (with a success rate greater than a coin toss).
But there is an interesting conclusion there, the above only applies if the CD quality was properly downsampled from the source material. Turns out plenty of music CD makers do an incredibly bad job resulting in bad quality.
 
Source: http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

 

[coli]

  There has actually been a double blind study on the subject, audiophiles can not distinguish between SACD and regular CD quality (with a success rate greater than a coin toss).
But there is an interesting conclusion there, the above only applies if the CD quality was properly downsampled from the source material. Turns out plenty of music CD makers do an incredibly bad job resulting in bad quality.
 
Source: http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

Audiophile setups can not distinguish anything, that's actually the whole point sadly. Only recording studio setups can do it.

 

[KeithEmo]

   
I saw a recent video where Ethan Winer discusses his home theater set up, and he is using 3 Mackie HR264 monitors as his left, right, and center channel speakers.  You can get the MK2 models for around $500 from some places.  That may not be quite entry level, but it isn't too expensive.  Certainly well within the reach of most consumers.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu32oisgIq0

 
There are several choices in that price range.... and you should factor in that, by using a powered monitor, you don't need to buy, or find a spot for, an amplifier, and you only need one set of interconnect cables (and no speaker cables).

 

[KeithEmo]

  Audiophile setups can not distinguish anything, that's actually the whole point sadly. Only recording studio setups can do it.

 
Let me start by saying that I'm not disagreeing with the basic claim in the article. In fact I'm inclined to agree with the authors of the article - that most high-res recordings that sound better do so simply because they are better recordings. I've never personally heard any difference between a well recorded SACD and the same content after being converted to 88k PCM that couldn't be reasonably attributed to the conversion process itself, and I'm not convinced that there is any.
 
HOWEVER, I also don't find the test you cited to be compelling in the general case. The fact that a number of audiophiles were unable to distinguish between two formats in an ABX test, using (unspecified) content, converted using (unspecified) conversion software or hardware, listening on (unspecified) "normal" or (unspecified) "expensive audiophile equipment" hardly seem to me to be compelling evidence that there is no difference that might be audible under other circumstances. (Making the general claim would be like claiming that "nobody can hear when a piano is slightly out of tune" - when the reality is that, even though most people may not notice a given amount of error, there are some few with perfect pitch who can detect it quite easily. I would want to see such a test run on a wide variety of source material, with a variety of recorders, and using a wide variety of speakers, amplifiers, and headphones, before I would consider it to be reasonably representative of "everyone everywhere with all equipment".) Therefore, I would limit my "interpretation" of their results to "several people, using good quality content, and several audiophile quality speakers, were unable to tell the difference" - which is certainly interesting.

 

[arnyk]

   
HOWEVER, I also don't find the test you cited to be compelling in the general case. The fact that a number of audiophiles were unable to distinguish between two formats in an ABX test, using (unspecified) content, converted using (unspecified) conversion software or hardware, listening on (unspecified) "normal" or (unspecified) "expensive audiophile equipment" hardly seem to me to be compelling evidence that there is no difference that might be audible under other circumstances. (Making the general claim would be like claiming that "nobody can hear when a piano is slightly out of tune" - when the reality is that, even though most people may not notice a given amount of error, there are some few with perfect pitch who can detect it quite easily. I would want to see such a test run on a wide variety of source material, with a variety of recorders, and using a wide variety of speakers, amplifiers, and headphones, before I would consider it to be reasonably representative of "everyone everywhere with all equipment".) Therefore, I would limit my "interpretation" of their results to "several people, using good quality content, and several audiophile quality speakers, were unable to tell the difference" - which is certainly interesting.

 
If one studies the issue at all, such as reading the article and some well known discussion of it,  one finds that the following is a litany of false claims:
 
"The fact that a number of audiophiles were unable to distinguish between two formats in an ABX test, using (unspecified) content, converted using (unspecified) conversion software or hardware, listening on (unspecified) "normal" or (unspecified) "expensive audiophile equipment" hardly seem to me to be compelling evidence that there is no difference that might be audible under other circumstances."
 
For example: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm and https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2
 
However, the statement that "Audiophile setups cannot distinguish anything" is a very gross generalization and therefore false on its face. There is a strong tendency for audiophiles to be very chauvinistic and often completely wrong about the sound quality and resolving power of their audio systems. But all of them?  Unlikely, and IME not true.

 

[teddytejero]

If one studies the issue at all, such as reading the article and some well known discussion of it,  one finds that the following is a litany of false claims:

"The fact that a number of audiophiles were unable to distinguish between two formats in an ABX test, using (unspecified) content, converted using (unspecified) conversion software or hardware, listening on (unspecified) "normal" or (unspecified) "expensive audiophile equipment" hardly seem to me to be compelling evidence that there is no difference that might be audible under other circumstances."

For example: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm and https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2

However, the statement that "Audiophile setups cannot distinguish anything" is a very gross generalization and therefore false on its face. There is a strong tendency for audiophiles to be very chauvinistic and often completely wrong about the sound quality and resolving power of their audio systems. But all of them?  Unlikely, and IME not true.

It's not so that when you can't hear it ... that it is not there when reading about the 'limitations of the human ear'. With my expensive earphones HD-800 I can't 'feel' the difference but when you put me in front of a set of Mark Wilson speakers with adequate amp I can feel it in my gut and feel the vibes through my body. Music is magic and sometimes I feel it is a way to touch the devine. No maths for me ...

 

[castleofargh]

just saw this on another forum
 
 
Quote:

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

P K Dick
 
 
nicely in context I find ^_^.

 

[KeithEmo]

   
If one studies the issue at all, such as reading the article and some well known discussion of it,  one finds that the following is a litany of false claims:
 
"The fact that a number of audiophiles were unable to distinguish between two formats in an ABX test, using (unspecified) content, converted using (unspecified) conversion software or hardware, listening on (unspecified) "normal" or (unspecified) "expensive audiophile equipment" hardly seem to me to be compelling evidence that there is no difference that might be audible under other circumstances."
 
For example: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm and https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?ID=2
 
However, the statement that "Audiophile setups cannot distinguish anything" is a very gross generalization and therefore false on its face. There is a strong tendency for audiophiles to be very chauvinistic and often completely wrong about the sound quality and resolving power of their audio systems. But all of them?  Unlikely, and IME not true.

 
I don't exactly feel corrected (since I was responding solely to the information in the linked article). HOWEVER, I should note that, with the additional documentation, I think they did an excellent job of documenting that, at least under "typical audiophile listening conditions", and with a reasonable sample of source material and equipment, the differences are "minimal at best".
 
(I actually agree that the test was well run and its results should be considered "significant". I just take exception that we as a society tend to over-generalize... in both directions. The folks selling high-resolution content like to over-generalize that it will ALWAYS sound better; and their opponents tend to overgeneralize that it cannot possibly be so. Based on my personal experience, I would be quite comfortable stating that SOME high-res recordings I own sound significantly better than their CD-quality counterparts on my current equipment; however, I suspect that the difference, when it exists, is often simply the result of better mastering or higher production values, and not because of the high-resolution format... and I can't rule out the possibility that this might always be the reason. I would also state that the majority of CD recordings fail to live up to the quality possible with that format, which makes it difficult to make valid generalized comparisons either way. However, I also doubt that anyone will ever run comprehensive enough tests to be able to state the generalization that "no high-resolution recording will ever sound better than its CD-quality counterpart, when played on any equipment, simply because of the higher quality recording format" - which is what you would have to prove to justify a claim to "there being no benefit at all".)
 
IN GENERAL, I would say that their test was well thought out, and well documented, within practical limits... and did a pretty good job of showing that, at least with some "typical high end content and equipment", "reducing the quality" of some typical high-resolution recordings to CD quality didn't produce any audible difference - and so the high-resolution format of those recordings was providing no real audible benefit. I would also agree that this strongly suggests that, at least under some circumstances (reasonably typical ones), the claims to the contrary are exaggerated or downright false.
 
However, I would suggest that a more concise and accurate statement of the results might be....
 
A controlled test was conducted, using several different test systems comprised of high-end consumer and professional audio equipment, all of which was considered to be "current technology" in 2007. The results of this test showed that, when a variety of high-resolution discs (both SACDs and DVD-As) were played on several high-end consumer and professional sound systems, under normal listening conditions (chosen by the test subjects), the test subjects couldn't reliably determine whether the audio signal had been "passed through a CD-quality record and playback loop" (see details in the original article) - or not. This suggests that, under the conditions tested, and with the content and test equipment used, "reducing" the quality of the high-resolution recordings to "CD quality" produced no audible difference, which further suggests that, under the conditions tested, and using "typical current high-end equipment", the high-resolution recordings offered no audible benefit over "CD quality".
 
NOTE that my wording accurately states the situation, and the conclusion that no differences were heard using the stated test content and equipment, but correctly neglects to rule out the possibility that differences might be audible with other source content or other equipment (which you can't reasonably rule out without a lot more testing).
 
(My personal quibble with their test is that the performance of DACs varies considerably, and has progressed since 2007, so I'm not convinced that the disc players they used as sources were "nominally good enough" to be ruled out as a limiting factor. Perhaps, if the content they used were played back on a higher-quality DAC, there would have been details present which would have been audibly lost later in the signal chain. Likewise, while the Quads and Snells are what I would consider to be "very good speakers", I can't rule out the possibility that some of the many other speakers out there might do a better job of making some difference audible. I'm also inclined to feel that, when listening for subtle details, headphones do a better job of revealing differences than loudspeakers - yet they failed to include any headphone listening. This seems like a significant omission - and one that would have been easy to remedy. It occurs to me that they - quite reasonably - were only trying to prove the "typical case" - which they did pretty well.)  
 
Personally, I would very much like to see a "public challenge", where a content provider, a DAC vendor, a speaker vendor, and an amplifier vendor, would get together and try to provide a sample of high-resolution music that was "so good that it couldn't be reproduced on a CD without audibly obvious degradation". Several makers of DACs and studio ADCs could then attempt to disprove the claim by showing that, when their equipment was inserted into the signal chain, none of the audience could hear a difference.

 

[sonitus mirus]

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I don't exactly feel corrected (since I was responding solely to the information in the linked article). HOWEVER, I should note that, with the additional documentation, I think they did an excellent job of documenting that, at least under "typical audiophile listening conditions", and with a reasonable sample of source material and equipment, the differences are "minimal at best".
 
(I actually agree that the test was well run and its results should be considered "significant". I just take exception that we as a society tend to over-generalize... in both directions. The folks selling high-resolution content like to over-generalize that it will ALWAYS sound better; and their opponents tend to overgeneralize that it cannot possibly be so. Based on my personal experience, I would be quite comfortable stating that SOME high-res recordings I own sound significantly better than their CD-quality counterparts on my current equipment; however, I suspect that the difference, when it exists, is often simply the result of better mastering or higher production values, and not because of the high-resolution format... and I can't rule out the possibility that this might always be the reason. I would also state that the majority of CD recordings fail to live up to the quality possible with that format, which makes it difficult to make valid generalized comparisons either way. However, I also doubt that anyone will ever run comprehensive enough tests to be able to state the generalization that "no high-resolution recording will ever sound better than its CD-quality counterpart, when played on any equipment, simply because of the higher quality recording format" - which is what you would have to prove to justify a claim to "there being no benefit at all".)
 
IN GENERAL, I would say that their test was well thought out, and well documented, within practical limits... and did a pretty good job of showing that, at least with some "typical high end content and equipment", "reducing the quality" of some typical high-resolution recordings to CD quality didn't produce any audible difference - and so the high-resolution format of those recordings was providing no real audible benefit. I would also agree that this strongly suggests that, at least under some circumstances (reasonably typical ones), the claims to the contrary are exaggerated or downright false.
 
However, I would suggest that a more concise and accurate statement of the results might be....
 
A controlled test was conducted, using several different test systems comprised of high-end consumer and professional audio equipment, all of which was considered to be "current technology" in 2007. The results of this test showed that, when a variety of high-resolution discs (both SACDs and DVD-As) were played on several high-end consumer and professional sound systems, under normal listening conditions (chosen by the test subjects), the test subjects couldn't reliably determine whether the audio signal had been "passed through a CD-quality record and playback loop" (see details in the original article) - or not. This suggests that, under the conditions tested, and with the content and test equipment used, "reducing" the quality of the high-resolution recordings to "CD quality" produced no audible difference, which further suggests that, under the conditions tested, and using "typical current high-end equipment", the high-resolution recordings offered no audible benefit over "CD quality".
 
NOTE that my wording accurately states the situation, and the conclusion that no differences were heard using the stated test content and equipment, but correctly neglects to rule out the possibility that differences might be audible with other source content or other equipment (which you can't reasonably rule out without a lot more testing).
 
(My personal quibble with their test is that the performance of DACs varies considerably, and has progressed since 2007, so I'm not convinced that the disc players they used as sources were "nominally good enough" to be ruled out as a limiting factor. Perhaps, if the content they used were played back on a higher-quality DAC, there would have been details present which would have been audibly lost later in the signal chain. Likewise, while the Quads and Snells are what I would consider to be "very good speakers", I can't rule out the possibility that some of the many other speakers out there might do a better job of making some difference audible. I'm also inclined to feel that, when listening for subtle details, headphones do a better job of revealing differences than loudspeakers - yet they failed to include any headphone listening. This seems like a significant omission - and one that would have been easy to remedy. It occurs to me that they - quite reasonably - were only trying to prove the "typical case" - which they did pretty well.)  

 
Personally, I would very much like to see a "public challenge", where a content provider, a DAC vendor, a speaker vendor, and an amplifier vendor, would get together and try to provide a sample of high-resolution music that was "so good that it couldn't be reproduced on a CD without audibly obvious degradation". Several makers of DACs and studio ADCs could then attempt to disprove the claim by showing that, when their equipment was inserted into the signal chain, none of the audience could hear a difference.

 
Why would anyone be required to disprove the claim?  That makes no sense to me.  I can disprove it now.  I don't hear any difference.  The person making the claim has the responsibility of proving it.  If there is a difference, let them show it and provide all of the details so that others can verify the results.

 

[KeithEmo]

   
Why would anyone be required to disprove the claim?  That makes no sense to me.  I can disprove it now.  I don't hear any difference.  The person making the claim has the responsibility of proving it.  If there is a difference, let them show it and provide all of the details so that others can verify the results.

 
It's a matter of perspective (philosophically).....
 
YOU can make the claim that YOU don't hear any difference.
And I can make the claim that I sometimes do hear a difference.
 
I am no more obligated to "prove" that I do hear a difference than you are to prove that you don't hear one. However, someone else reading both our statements, and trying to determine which will prove "true" to them in their situation, is probably looking for some sort of objective "truth". And we can safely assume that someone reading about that test is actually doing so because they hope to determine whether THEY can expect to hear a difference or not, and they can only reasonably do that if they are provided with enough details to determine whether the results of that test are likely to agree with their situation or not, and how well they coincide. (As long as the situations are similar, a test conducted using more people, and more variety of equipment and sources, seems more likely to have produced results that will "be right" for more people.)
 
To me, that test was conducted several years ago, using equipment that, while it was certainly considered to be "good" at the time, almost certainly does NOT perform at the same level as modern equipment; and they also used a limited variety of equipment. I know personally that in 2007 I owned a DAC that was considered to be "high-end", yet I've replaced it since then with one that performs and sounds better. Therefore, even knowing that a high-res file sounded no different than a CD to me, on the DAC I owned in 2007, wouldn't specifically suggest that the same would be true with my current equipment... and with current high-res music sources. (Therefore, while I have no specific reason to disbelieve the results of that test, I also don't have what I consider compelling reasons to assume that they're still true either. Now, if I had exactly the same equipment as that used in the test, I would consider it much more likely that my experiences with it would be much similar.)