Illusions in Sound

[StateDJ85]

(sorry about the length of this post)

I'm sitting here listening to a Panasonic HTiB system that cost me 280 bucks at Circuit City. I've got a Paradigm Monitor/Yamaha system at home and needed something cheap for a college apartment. I looked all over and ended up with this one. After listening to it for about 3 months, I've come up with a theory about illusions in sound.......

Most audiophiles would think this system is a joke. All 5 speakers are powered by the subwoofer, and without the subwoofer, the system just sounds like a room full of tweeters. However, I recently listened to the DTS sampler CD with this system, and I was blown away! Not even by the movie portions, but specifically the live Allison Kraus performance at the end. I closed my eyes and listened to the song, and even after being exposed to Paradigm Reference, B&W Nautilus, Martin Logan, etc., I really could not believe I was listening to such a cheap system. To me, what really stood out was the treble detail and the bass. Because it has a small subwoofer, I think an unexpected effect is fairly well-defined bass. It rarely is ever too much bass.

I thought this over and got to thinking that I think the presence of obvious treble and bass lead some consumers to believe they're listening to a "high end" system. Even though, the mid range is pretty much a joke on this system, I really think the presence of detailed treble and subtle bass makes this system really sound high-end. I just found this to be an interesting observation, because this system should be at about the bottom of the barrel regarding sound quality. Instead, the treble and bass created this illusion for me that I was listening to a very expensive system. Seems to be the same impression I've had with some sets of computer speakers. Of course, doing a side-by-side comparision would suggest a completely different point of view, but just by itself, has anyone else noticed similar effects with cheaper systems? I know I'm a pretty new person to high-end audio, but nonetheless, my initial impression of this system is somehow detailed tweeters and the perfect amount of bass seem to really push this system way above it's intended market. Anyone else notice this "illusion" in cheaper stuff?

[topspeed]

Hmmm...

My first question would be why you think a hot treble and strong bass define "hi-end" sound? Most certainly, "hi-end" is debateable to begin with, but we won't get into that. IMO, the first thing any speaker needs to do right is the midrange. After all, this is where the vast majority of the music lives. The Quad ESL's are legendary for the their midrange prowess, which is why they are still coveted after all these years. They don't play the lower octaves and their treble can be somewhat reserved, but boy do they nail the mids! If you can't get the mids right, nothing else matters.

A lot of todays pop music relies on a hot top end and booming bass to add presence. When you consider that most people listen to music on OEM car speakers or cheese-ball clock radios at home, is it any wonder they are mixed they way they are? It sounds like your Panny takes advantage of this. That's smart design on their behalf. Hey, as long as you're happy, who cares if it's an illusion or not? Reality is nothing more than illusions filtered through our own experiences anyway.

Enjoy the music.

[Woochifer]

As topspeed has already articulated, having elevated highs and a midbass boost does not equate to "high end" sound. If anything, those are common approaches that entry level systems use to get around the system's deficiencies. In actuality, the midrange is by far the most important part of the frequency range that a system has to get right. And this point has been proven through acoustical research and listening tests. Once you've heard and gotten used to a system that actually has good linearity in the midrange, with minimal variation in the high and lows, it's actually pretty easy to pick out how a system that boosts the midbass and highs creates inaccuracies in the playback.

With a multichannel system, one of the keys to getting it to sound right is with the speaker placement and the setup. In my experience with dealer demo rooms, very few of them -- even those with high end processors, amps, and speakers -- set up their multichannel systems properly. A properly setup entry level system can reveal a lot of attributes in a multichannel soundtrack, that even a high end system cannot reveal if it's not properly setup. Your setup at home very well could be closer to optimal than any of the demo room listenings that you've done.

When you listened to the Paradigm Reference, B&W Nautilus, and Martin Logan systems, were they in a proper 5.1 alignment with all channels level matched and equidistant? If not, then your earlier listenings were done under less than optimal conditions.

And when you mention that your system gets the bass right, keep in mind that the low frequencies are heavily influenced by the room acoustics. A lot of what you're hearing likely has more to do with how your system interacts with the room acoustics. Put your system into a different room, and the bass can sound completely different.

If you got a relatively inexpensive system to sound decent to your ears, then keep right on enjoying your good fortune. Just keep in mind that if your current setup sounds fine, a higher end system in the same room could still sound a lot better.

[Lensman]

Starting my audio journey many years ago with a portable mono tape recorder, I can say I definitely felt the same way once. So I agree with your illusion theory. I feel most people fall for this illusion because:

* Most people have never heard an audio system capable of actually generating anywhere near the full frequency range their ears can hear.
* Because most people are used to listening to cheap audio from the likes of clock radios, car stereos, MP3 players, etc., they believe audio devices are supposed to sound different from audio they hear at live shows or in their normal environment
* Instead of paying attention to what they're hearing, most people use music as background noise while they concentrate on doing other things
* Most people are more interested in hearing audio special effects (rumbling explosions, shattering glass, etc.) in surround sound setups than in listening to the overall content
* When making an audio purchase, most people won't give what they're buying an extended listen in a quiet environment. A few quick clips off an in-store demo disc and their buying decision is made.

As a result, I think it's relatively easy for manufacturers to distort what is basically poor audio to give people what they perceive to be complete and compelling sound. But true high end systems can be easily separated from these systems by simply listening them for more than brief periods of time (especially with stereo audio) while doing nothing else. Doing this with a low-end sytem typically yields sound that might be impressive at first but becomes very tedious and tiresome to listen to after a brief period of time. For example, after listening to just one CD, you may find you just have to turn the system off and go do something else. Listening to anything short on special effect sounds may bore you. You may also have to keep turning up the volume because you can't quite make out certain things (such as some dialogue). By comparison, true high-end systems are captivating even with the must mundane of materials, clear at low volume levels, and so comfortable to listen to that you can lose hours listening to them without realizing it.

It's unfortunate that most people will never do this simple listening test and remain content to place less and less importance on devoted listening as a result.

[hermanv]

An easy trap, one many retail salespeople use to push speakers or equipment. The customer (victim) has never heard that kind of bass or treble extension and quickly believes that the sound therefore represents the definition of "high end"

Sometime back I was visiting a friend, a neighbor walks up and says "Hey are you that engineer friend of his?" "Can you tell me whats wrong with my car stereo? I spent $8,000 at a highly regarded shop and its just not right."

So we go to his vehicle and there are drivers and amplifiers and equalizers everywhere. It's all bass and treble and plenty of it, sounded awful.

So I said, lets turn down the woofer to as low as it will go and the tweeter to as low as it will go and see how the midrange sounds. He says, "What should I play?" And I respond "Almost anyone can tell if a human voice is right or not"

The mid didn't get the fancy high priced amplifier, it didn't get the exotic high priced drivers (looked like a standard door speaker, you know 5 1/4" little tiny magnet, no custom enclosure and so on) Sounded just like a cheap car radio. He says "crap, that's not right". I told him to go back to the store demonstrate how poor the midrange quality was and demand a fix. I warned him that they honestly might not know how and that they would cover their lack of knowledge by turning the bass and treble back up enough to disguise the problem.

It is hard to try and avoid the temptation to add all that extension, but until the mids are clear and pure you have nothing. Once that's done, you add bass and treble back in, you will probably have a system worth using to listen to artists performing their craft.

Of course bass and treble quality are just as important, but many just go for quantity. Unfortunately truly good bass and truly good treble often end up costing truly good money.

[StateDJ85]

Thanks everyone for your replies. I've noticed another interesting phenomenon with this system that almost led my dad into buying a 3,000 dollar bose system from Fry's Electronics (hate both). It's something pretty simple that's been around for a while.......surround sound. I was actually with him and talked him out of it, telling him that even though the bose system did a good job of surrounding you with sound, we could do much better for 3 grand. Nonetheless, as a person who was used to 2 channel sound with 30 year old pioneer speakers, the idea of surround sound (regardless of the quality of the actual speakers), was amazing enough to make him almost purchase the system. I think people often fall into the sales trap of thinking they're hearing some amazing advancement in speaker imaging, when it's really just the nature of surround sound. I brought him to the local high-end dealer and had him listen to a set of paradigm studio 80's, which basically created center channel and rear channel speakers on their own, with imaging. He had to look all over the room and still didnt find more than the 2 front speakers. Interesting how after that, he's been able to recognize all the sales traps and marketing games the big stores play.... If only everyone knew they were being fed bull****.

[hermanv]

Like your dad, it's possible the saleman really didn't know any better. Many people think their home stereo sounds great, when in fact it's mass market mediocre. It does the basic job, but even many design engineers rarely hear how much is missing. So if one of these people hears an attempt by any manufacturer to do even a little better they are amazed.

Educating people to listen better is hard, they're understandably very resistant to the notion that they can't hear without help or training.

[RGA]

Starting my audio journey many years ago with a portable mono tape recorder, I can say I definitely felt the same way once. So I agree with your illusion theory. I feel most people fall for this illusion because:

* Most people have never heard an audio system capable of actually generating anywhere near the full frequency range their ears can hear.
* Because most people are used to listening to cheap audio from the likes of clock radios, car stereos, MP3 players, etc., they believe audio devices are supposed to sound different from audio they hear at live shows or in their normal environment
* Instead of paying attention to what they're hearing, most people use music as background noise while they concentrate on doing other things
* Most people are more interested in hearing audio special effects (rumbling explosions, shattering glass, etc.) in surround sound setups than in listening to the overall content
* When making an audio purchase, most people won't give what they're buying an extended listen in a quiet environment. A few quick clips off an in-store demo disc and their buying decision is made.

As a result, I think it's relatively easy for manufacturers to distort what is basically poor audio to give people what they perceive to be complete and compelling sound. But true high end systems can be easily separated from these systems by simply listening them for more than brief periods of time (especially with stereo audio) while doing nothing else. Doing this with a low-end sytem typically yields sound that might be impressive at first but becomes very tedious and tiresome to listen to after a brief period of time. For example, after listening to just one CD, you may find you just have to turn the system off and go do something else. Listening to anything short on special effect sounds may bore you. You may also have to keep turning up the volume because you can't quite make out certain things (such as some dialogue). By comparison, true high-end systems are captivating even with the must mundane of materials, clear at low volume levels, and so comfortable to listen to that you can lose hours listening to them without realizing it.

It's unfortunate that most people will never do this simple listening test and remain content to place less and less importance on devoted listening as a result.

Well said -- I concur.

[abstracta]

More condencending propaganda from the audio thought police here.

>>>>>I think the presence of obvious treble and bass lead some consumers to believe they're listening to a "high end" system

Mostly they think it's high end if they have a big rack of seperates, which forces the electrical signal to travel through a few dozen IC boards and a few hundred feet of signal path which also includes several pounds of wound transformer. As long as the device is heavy and has a fancy front block the signal doesn't get degraded though. {smirk}

'High end' also means you've paid $1800 for a pair of two way speakers with the obligatory 6" 'multi-range' woofer that I can get in a parts kit for $100. That, in a nutshell, is 'high end', along with the typical audiophile snob dislike of any real bass extension (that can't be emitted by a 6" drive of course)

I'm being cynical here, but also making a point. The Panasonic unit you have I believe has a similiar digital amplifier stage to my Panasonic XR55, which when I compared it to several 'high end' conventional amps (recently a nice $2500 Denon) found it delivered more detail and resolution. These guys won't agree with you though and call you stupid simply because you haven't spent as much money as they have on gear.

Your speakers are the achilles heel here, and while you are likely hearing good detail from your recordings via the Pannys uber' clean digital stage, it's ain't 'high end' either. Spend a couple hundred bucks on some Ascend or Axiom bookshelfs and you'll be on cloud nine while laughing at these turkeys.

[GMichael]

More condencending propaganda from the audio thought police here.

>>>>>I think the presence of obvious treble and bass lead some consumers to believe they're listening to a "high end" system

Mostly they think it's high end if they have a big rack of seperates, which forces the electrical signal to travel through a few dozen IC boards and a few hundred feet of signal path which also includes several pounds of wound transformer. As long as the device is heavy and has a fancy front block the signal doesn't get degraded though. {smirk}

'High end' also means you've paid $1800 for a pair of two way speakers with the obligatory 6" 'multi-range' woofer that I can get in a parts kit for $100. That, in a nutshell, is 'high end', along with the typical audiophile snob dislike of any real bass extension (that can't be emitted by a 6" drive of course)

I'm being cynical here, but also making a point. The Panasonic unit you have I believe has a similiar digital amplifier stage to my Panasonic XR55, which when I compared it to several 'high end' conventional amps (recently a nice $2500 Denon) found it delivered more detail and resolution. These guys won't agree with you though and call you stupid simply because you haven't spent as much money as they have on gear.

Your speakers are the achilles heel here, and while you are likely hearing good detail from your recordings via the Pannys uber' clean digital stage, it's ain't 'high end' either. Spend a couple hundred bucks on some Ascend or Axiom bookshelfs and you'll be on cloud nine while laughing at these turkeys.

I think you should keep your Panasonic XR55 and enjoy it. That's what really counts right? That you like it?