A mainstream home audio article that I didn't think completely sucked...

[TKoP]

Link

A couple of highlights..

If you listen to more music than movies, stick with two speakers, along with a stereo receiver or amplifier, plus a CD or digital music source like your computer or smartphone, and if you're into vinyl, a turntable. Your budget invested in two speakers rather than five or more speakers allows you to buy better quality speakers.

Or go with the no-speaker audio system.
Speakers take up space, and good receivers or amplifiers can be pricey, so you might want to consider going speaker-less and pick up a nice pair of mid-price headphonesand a decent headphone amp. Dollar for dollar, headphones provide better sound quality than speakers.

 

[Zing]

Dollar for dollar, headphones provide better sound quality than speakers.

I have a really hard time agreeing with this statement. While I think the author was trying to convey that quality sound can be had for less money with headphones than with speakers, I'd much rather listen to music through a pair of $3000 speakers than a $2000 pair of headphones. And I can't be in the minority on this.

 

[Flint]

For detail, accuracy, and getting what is in the recording to your eardrums, the author is correct that headphones do it better and cheaper than speakers.

But, we listen with our bodies as well, so having sound waves lapping against our bodies (or pounding us in the gut) makes speakers more experiential. Also, most recordings are mastered on speakers, so all the crosstalk introduced by speakers is necessary to hear what the mastering engineers hear. I have heard a few classic albums remixed/remastered for headphones, and they are amazing, but those recordings sound pretty poor on speakers.

 

[TKoP]

I have a really hard time agreeing with this statement. While I think the author was trying to convey that quality sound can be had for less money with headphones than with speakers, I'd much rather listen to music through a pair of $3000 speakers than a $2000 pair of headphones. And I can't be in the minority on this.

I agree completely -- but my thoughts mirror Flint's that for pure sound quality.

One of the more important things for me is the sound-stage you get with a good speaker setup. When I can "hear" the singer is located in the front , the drummer in the back, guitarist on the left and bass on the right, that's the magic for me. That being said, you can get a $300 headphone setup that I think will sound better than a $2k speaker setup taking out the sound-stage option. That being said, if I have someone with a tight budget of say ~$500 or so, i'd steer them to headphones generally speaking.

 

[Zing]

One of the more important things for me is the sound-stage you get with a good speaker setup. When I can "hear" the singer is located in the front , the drummer in the back, guitarist on the left and bass on the right, that's the magic for me

That is precisely my reasoning for my preference of speakers over headphones.

(This would be the time when Paul chimes in with "Well, you know, with my X cans and my X tube rolled output stage with an SS AD/DA converter and my x analog hp amp, I can hear Joe's mother in the background yelling 'Joey, come eat your bananas!".)

 

[Botch]

I don't understand how a soundstage on even the world's best speakers can be wider than on any ol' set of headphones.

 

[Zing]

I don't understand how a soundstage on even the world's best speakers can be wider than on any ol' set of headphones.

I would think room width differences coupled with listening position distance differences would make a soundstage seem wider.

 

[Flint]

I don't understand how a soundstage on even the world's best speakers can be wider than on any ol' set of headphones.

It isn't about separation. It is about mixing with with acoustic crosstalk making the recording require a set of speakers to have the right soundstage.

As I mentioned above, If the mix was done entirely on headphones, the best stereo sound would be too narrow on speakers. If mixed on speakers, it is too wide for headphones.

 

[Deleted member 133]

That is precisely my reasoning for my preference of speakers over headphones.

(This would be the time when Paul chimes in with "Well, you know, with my X cans and my X tube rolled output stage with an SS AD/DA converter and my x analog hp amp, I can hear Joe's mother in the background yelling 'Joey, come eat your bananas!".)

That was a perfectly good mouthful of root beer that ended up back in the glass via my nose thanks to you Zing.

Jeff

 

[Deleted member 133]

...and to get back to the OP...

I've got a ton of thoughts racing around inside my noggin as I read everyone else's comments. Some I agree with; all I could agree with - with some qualification(s). No disagreement.

BUT I'm finding my biggest issue is with something in the OP that nobody's hit on: "If you listen to more music than movies, stick with two speakers, along with a stereo receiver or amplifier, plus a CD or digital music source like your computer or smartphone, and if you're into vinyl, a turntable. Your budget invested in two speakers rather than five or more speakers allows you to buy better quality speakers."

In terms of music listening enjoyment, I think I disagree. For the same money, I know that I would prefer listening to a multichannel, rather than stereo, system. I really prefer my music that way - regardless of what the sound engineer (or anyone else) intended. PLIIx-Music is my go-to setting for almost all music listening (except when it's a 5.1 recording to start with.)

This holds at any price point that I can think of. I could assemble a 7.1 system (cheap Blu-ray/SACD/CD/streaming player (<$100); receiver (~$500); seven speaker / one sub ($1400)) that would give me far more listening enjoyment / pleasure (for music) than a 2.0 stereo system (same cheap Blu-ray player; stereo receiver at same price; $1400 for a pair of speakers). Ditto for a $3k, $4k, or $5k system. (And headphones don't even enter into consideration - no matter how good they perform.)

Yes it's apples and oranges. Yes the sound is very different. But surely the quoted statement must be intended to be relevant to the purchaser / listener. And that's why such a broad one-sided suggestion does not suit me in this case.

Jeff

 

[TKoP]

Another article by the same guy... http://www.cnet.com/news/five-audiophile-myths-totally-busted/

Now, this one certainly provides a point of view, but one that I'm not universally sharing... but again, I don't think I'd say the article blows, it's just a little short.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

You would think that he could have found 5 alternate "myths" than the ones he did. Kind of lame, overall.

 

[Flint]

Yeah... like the myth about wires and cables making a "night and day" difference, or the myth that acoustics matter... wait.