Hard facts from a HUG member

[Analogous]

HUG is the Harbeth user group. This forum is firmly moderated with active participation of Alan Shaw, owner and chief designer of Harbeth.
A member of the HUG posted this. I thought several of his “facts and opinions” were interesting and worthy of our consideration and possibly discussion. I hope we don’t start repeating what has been discussed in the “subjective vs Objective” thread.

So here they are:

HUG Member: Goergenchr

“Hard facts:

1. The deficiencies of speakers are by magnitudes greater than those of electronics.
2. Electronics can be tested solely by measurements.
3. The signal consists of only one voltage per time.
4. The human ear needs appr. 4 full cycles to identify the frequency of a tone.
5. Every complex acoustic signal can be synthesized only with sinusoid waves. It is an approximation.
6. The human hearing acuity including so called resolution is not infinite. See for rheobase and chronaxy.
7. 16/44 Is sufficient.
8. There is no spatial 3d information in the signal. It is stereo, a left to right difference in loudness and running time. It‘s all in the signal. Two times mono. Height, depth etc. is a conceit. That is what stereo was invented for. It‘s not your fault or weakness. For height a second pair of speakers is necessary. With different signals, recorded from different microphone (higher) positions.
9. Hearing stops in the ear, the processing happens in the brain (summation and integration of the two monaural impressions, added from two quasi omnidirectional radiating speakers and the room surfaces).
10. You can spoil the performance of the best speakers by mispositioning.
11. The only relevant performance is the one in your listening room. No doubt allowed.
12. The purpose of music reproduction is fun.
13. Any professional detection or analysis of acoustic signals is done by technical devices, because they are faster, more sensitive and more reliable.
14. The frequency range we are competent to analyze the best is the range of human speech. The best recording for testing is a recording of a well known voice (not your own). Not music. Any beloved song is overloaded with sentiments.
15. A monophonic voice recording could relieve you from seeking the best interspeaker position or any matching issues.
16. Before you go out for speaker testing, listen to familiar voices with eyes closed. Is there three-dimensionality? Can you certainly discriminate throat and chest as sound generators? And if, what is it good for? What exactly do you miss when you listen with your current gear? Do you know?
17. Whatever we purchase, someday we‘re tempted to revise our decision.
18. 80% of these views or conceptions did I gather here on HUG.
19. So objectively our possibilities to buy the best speaker ever are limited. Get over it.

Regarding point 6 - rheobase.

“
Rheobase is a measure of membrane potential excitability. In neuroscience, rheobase is the minimal current amplitude of infinite duration (in a practical sense, about 300 milliseconds) that results in the depolarization threshold of the cell membranes being reached, such as an action potential or the contraction of a muscle.[1] In Greek, the root rhe translates to "current or flow", and basi means "bottom or foundation": thus the rheobase is the minimum current that will produce an action potential or muscle contraction.
”

Chronaxy

“
Chronaxie is the minimum time required for an electric current to double the strength of the rheobase to stimulate a muscle or a neuron. Rheobase is the lowest intensity with indefinite pulse duration which just stimulated muscles or nerves.
”

Alan Shaw

 

[dinesh1201]

I very much agree with 16/44.1khz sufficiency, take it up to 24/48 which is generally capped on mobile devices, let includes DACs for up to 192khz..now what 32/384...and you start throwing the money. There's no limit to technology / gimmick producing by companies but our ear has a limit...it cannot be extended but surely it degrades as we age. We spend probably our brain loving all those tech than our ear does

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

"12. The purpose of music reproduction is fun."

The only point that matters.

 

[Bloom@83]

No 7. Yes yes yes.

 

[amrutmhatre90]

I feel everyone arrives at Point no. 17 someday
And its not just about Audio Gear, everything around us, we want better and better.

Whatever we purchase, someday we‘re tempted to revise our decision.

 

[square_wave]

Point no 8.. A little context is good while reading through it.

The height and depth of the illusion created by 2 speakers can be vastly improved/or spoilt by the acoustical properties of the room and loudspeaker positioning. Once such an ideal is achieved, the quality of electronics can also affect it although not so much as the aforementioned.

 

[Passive_audio_enthusiast]

for me it’s the soundstage height and depth. Height only happens with conventional 2 way speaker. With full range or coax it’s always in the same plane. If the crossover is set to 3000hz any signal with more info under 3000 is dominated by the mid/woofer and above that by the tweeter. Depending on if tweeter is above or below the woofer, they keep jumping between them creating an illusion of height differences. Coupled with how projective each of these composes r are the differences get exaggerated.

For example the opening note of the song : Toto - I will remember the drums appears to have set at different heights on my conventional speaker. When I audiotioned a kef, this was on the same plane, moving left to right. No height differences.

Depth is only result of how replacetions on certain frequencies are more in that room. The ones which aren’t reflected that much appears to stay behind the ones which are in front. It can be exhibited by any speaker depending on how we place them in the room.

 

[Analogous]

Point no 8.. A little context is good while reading through it.

The height and depth of the illusion created by 2 speakers can be vastly improved/or spoilt by the acoustical properties of the room and loudspeaker positioning. Once such an ideal is achieved, the quality of electronics can also affect it although not so much as the aforementioned.

I was wondering about this too. But I really haven’t heard any 2 channel system that convincingly showed layered depth or height.

That is not to say it’s not possible. Just that I have not experienced this.

I still can not refute what he has said in point 8. Maybe in HT set ups with Dolby Atmos and ceiling mounts etc….?

 

[Decadent_Spectre]

Stereo "effect" is achieved by 2 separate signals differing in amplitude and time in general. If you can try using a "summed" left/right signal fed to both speakers and see the difference.

 

[Analogous]

Stereo "effect" is achieved by 2 separate signals differing in amplitude and time in general. If you can try using a "summed" left/right signal fed to both speakers and see the difference.

Sorry, I don’t understand. Are you saying stereo is different from mono?
I fully agree with this.
I personally have not experienced depth and height in sound stage in stereo set ups in a obvious way. Again that maybe because I have not yet listened to a two channel system that can do this convincingly.
Since most performances and studio recordings have the musicians on the same floor (level) the height aspect doesn’t bother me. But being able to identify who is in front, at the back etc would be fantastic!
In cinema and multichannel home theatre systems I guess clearly identifiable sounds from all directions would be important (achieved by placement of speakers all around)

 

[prem]

If you can’t figure out who’s playing in front, who at the back then the set up is not correct. Any properly set up basic 2 channel stereo will be able to do it. The more expensive ones will give you more finesse, layers, texture, interplay of instruments,etc.

 

[Analogous]

If you can’t figure out who’s playing in front, who at the back then the set up is not correct. Any properly set up basic 2 channel stereo will be able to do it. The more expensive ones will give you more finesse, layers, texture, interplay of instruments,etc.

My set up doesn’t show this. It reveals details from side to side and the singer or instrumentalist in front but not who is behind. Still some way to go I guess.

 

[prem]

Yes. You need to work on setting it up right. Your Harbeth and the Croft should easily be able to do it.

The Croft at my place did exceptional layering

 

[raghupb]

If you can’t figure out who’s playing in front, who at the back then the set up is not correct. Any properly set up basic 2 channel stereo will be able to do it. The more expensive ones will give you more finesse, layers, texture, interplay of instruments,etc.

+1 to this.
The layering, texture is a tough one but simple depth of sound is easily achievable even on a modest setup.
In my home:
- Lyrita+AKSA+KEFs to it wonderfully
- Parasound Pre + Pwr + MA pups do it too, surprisingly well
The second one, because of rear tweeters, has a slightly wider stage.

Cheers,
Raghu

 

[Analogous]

Got to figure out how and why. Raghu, when you come over maybe you could help?

 

[drkrack]

My set up doesn’t show this. It reveals details from side to side and the singer or instrumentalist in front but not who is behind. Still some way to go I guess.

Start here, This is the first tests I do after setting up my speakers ( and sometimes for Evaluating Electronics)...

Online LEDR™ Sound Test | Listening Environment Diagnostic Recording Test

Audio Test Tones : check your stereo system for correct imaging

www.audiocheck.net

Over the years it's been routine. Any Properly designed and relatively well positioned system should be able to do this, my humble Polk Tsx 440 paired with Onkyo Integra 8470 Vintage amp, Marantz CD 6006 were able to do that without much effort ( I mean its not necessary to Get Expensive Speakers for Holographic Presentation). Well matched Tube setups take it a notch above SS in my experience.
There are few YT videos which can help you setup the speakers properly ; I will share them if I could dig them up.

Meanwhile most of the threads created by you, beat around the same topic ( hifi fetish, psychoacoustics, myths of Audiophiles etc) looks like your own research has been phenomenal, and I would definitely be interested to know your impressions.

 

[ajuvignesh]

for me it’s the soundstage height and depth. Height only happens with conventional 2 way speaker. With full range or coax it’s always in the same plane. If the crossover is set to 3000hz any signal with more info under 3000 is dominated by the mid/woofer and above that by the tweeter. Depending on if tweeter is above or below the woofer, they keep jumping between them creating an illusion of height differences. Coupled with how projective each of these composes r are the differences get exaggerated.

For example the opening note of the song : Toto - I will remember the drums appears to have set at different heights on my conventional speaker. When I audiotioned a kef, this was on the same plane, moving left to right. No height differences.

Depth is only result of how replacetions on certain frequencies are more in that room. The ones which aren’t reflected that much appears to stay behind the ones which are in front. It can be exhibited by any speaker depending on how we place them in the room.

Is it your own explanation or is there any article to back it up?

 

[square_wave]

I was wondering about this too. But I really haven’t heard any 2 channel system that convincingly showed layered depth or height.

That is not to say it’s not possible. Just that I have not experienced this.

I still can not refute what he has said in point 8. Maybe in HT set ups with Dolby Atmos and ceiling mounts etc….?

The amount of space behind your speakers plays a big part in the layering illusion. It is needs to be a few feet. The more, the better. The acoustical properties of the wall behind the speakers also matter a lot. You need space behind your head too...a few feet. Also fine tuning the exact position of speakers. I have heard many setups that do fantastic layering to the point that it is magical. You can achieve this with modest speakers and electronics too. When you go up the ladder, the quality of the sound increases -> Tone, timing, emotion, dynamics, micro and macro details, balance ... all falls in place. That is the additional value high end brings to the table.

Harbeth's Alan Shaw generally downplays the value the other components bring to the table to make people spend max on his speakers.

 

[Bloom@83]

Got to figure out how and why. Raghu, when you come over maybe you could help?

The most jaw dropping experience of soundstage depth I ever heard was at @bhaskarcan ’s place with his Rethm Saadhnas, Lowther 15’’ woofers powered by QSC amp, his Leben phono and of course the terrific Technics SP10 mk2 as source.On especially good recordings ,vocals and instruments were clearly separated spatially, some playing at the back of the speakers and some at the front. As per him , achieving depth is a combination of everything in the chain , not just the amp or speaker positioning or room reflections alone. And definitely it is not apparent in all stereo setups and not easy to achieve either.

 

[Analogous]

Start here, This is the first tests I do after setting up my speakers ( and sometimes for Evaluating Electronics)

Online LEDR™ Sound Test | Listening Environment Diagnostic Recording Test

Audio Test Tones : check your stereo system for correct imaging

www.audiocheck.net

Over the years it's been routine. Any Properly designed and relatively well positioned system should be able to do this, my humble Polk Tsx 440 paired with Onkyo Integra 8470 Vintage amp, Marantz CD 6006 were able to do that without much effort ( I mean its not necessary to Get Expensive Speakers for Holographic Presentation). Well matched Tube setups take it a notch above SS in my experience.
There are few YT videos which can help you setup the speakers properly ; I will share them if I could dig them up.

Meanwhile most of the threads created by you, beat around the same topic ( hifi fetish, psychoacoustics, myths of Audiophiles etc) looks like your own research has been phenomenal, and I would definitely be interested to know your impressions.

Chasing the chimera… You are right; my research and interest indicates the topics and areas I am fascinated about.
Hope we are all talking about the same thing
I do get a nice wide sound stage with clear separation. The decay of some notes is fabulous. There is nice heft and substance to the sound overall.
I just don’t get any perception of height
I also don’t get a clear sense of individual musicians positions front to back.
Hopefully I will figure it out.

The amount of space behind your speakers plays a big part in the layering illusion. It is needs to be a few feet. The more, the better. The acoustical properties of the wall behind the speakers also matter a lot. You need space behind your head too...a few feet. Also fine tuning the exact position of speakers. I have heard many setups that do fantastic layering to the point that it is magical. You can achieve this with modest speakers and electronics too. When you go up the ladder, the quality of the sound increases -> Tone, timing, emotion, dynamics, micro and macro details, balance ... all falls in place. That is the additional value high end brings to the table.

Harbeth's Alan Shaw generally downplays the value the other components bring to the table to make people spend max on his speakers.

I think you are absolutely right. In fact ever since the Croft arrived, I have been moving the speakers a lot. Sometimes three or four times a day trying to understand what each position does to the sound and my room acoustics.
I currently have them pulled out about 5’ away from the wall in front of me, 2.5 metres apart and @2.5 metres from my ears at the listening spot. (Even got a laser measure for this )
In essence I am trying near field to eliminate room effects as far as possible.
Astonishing to notice the change that even a 2-3” move sideways creates.
The layered depth I am seeking is still elusive in my room.