The Logic of Listening Tests

Casual readers may not believe this, but in the world of audiophilia there are people who enjoy organising scientific listening tests – or more aptly ‘trials’. These involve assembling panels of human ‘subjects’ to listen to snippets of music played through different setups in double blind tests, pressing buttons or filling in forms to indicate audible differences and preferences. The motivation is often to use science to debunk the ideas of a rival group, who may be known as ‘subjectivists’ or ‘objectivists’, or to confirm the ideas of one’s own group.

There are many, many inherent reasons why such listening tests may not be valid e.g.

  • no one can demonstrate that the knowledge you are taking part in an experiment doesn’t impede your ability to hear differences
  • a participant who has his own agenda may choose to ‘lie’ in order to pretend he is not hearing differences when he, in fact, is.
  • etc. etc.

The tests are difficult and tedious for the participants, and no one who holds the opposing viewpoint will be convinced by the results. At a logical level, they are dubious. So why bother to do the tests? I think it is an ‘appeal to a higher authority’ to arbitrate an argument that cannot be solved any other way. ‘Science’ is that higher authority.

But let’s look at just the logic.

We are told that there are two basic types of listening test:

  1. Determining or identifying audible difference
  2. Determining ‘preference’

Presumably the idea is that (1) suggests whether two or more devices or processes are equivalent, or whether their insertion into the audio chain is audibly transparent. If a difference is identified, then (2) can make the information useful and tell us which permutation sounds best to a human. Perhaps there is a notion that in the best case scenario a £100 DAC is found to sound identical to a £100,000 DAC, or that if they do sound different, the £100 DAC is preferred by listeners. Or vice versa.

But would anything actually have been gained by a listening test over simple measurements? A DAC has a very specific, well-defined job to do – we are not talking about observing the natural world and trying to work out what is going on. With today’s technology, it is trivial to make a DAC that is accurate to very close objective tolerances for £100 – it is not necessary to listen to it to know whether it works.

For two DACs to actually sound different, they must be measurably quite far apart. At least one of them is not even close to being a DAC: it is, in fact, an effects box of some kind. And such are the fundamental uncertainties in all experiments involving the asking of humans how they feel, it is entirely possible that in a preference-based listening test, the listeners are found to prefer the sound of the effects box.

Or not. It depends on myriad unstable factors. An effects box that adds some harmonic distortion may make certain recordings sound ‘louder’ or ‘more exciting’ thus eliciting a preference for it today – with those specific recordings. But the experiment cannot show that the listeners wouldn’t be bored with the effect three hours, days or months down the line. Or that they wouldn’t hate it if it happened to be raining. Or if the walls were painted yellow, not blue. You get the idea: it is nothing but aesthetic judgement, the classic condition where science becomes pseudoscience no matter how ‘scientific’ the methodology.

The results may be fed into statistical formulae and the handle cranked, allowing the experimenter to declare “statistical significance”, but this is just the usual misunderstanding of statistics, which are only valid under very specific mathematical conditions. If your experiment is built on invalid assumptions, the statistics mean nothing.

If we think it is acceptable for a ‘DAC’ to impose its own “effects” on the sound, where do we stop? Home theatre amps often have buttons labelled ‘Super Stereo’ or ‘Concert Hall’. Before we go declaring that the £100,000 DAC’s ‘effect’ is worth the money, shouldn’t we also verify that our experiment doesn’t show that ‘Super Stereo’ is even better? Or that a £10 DAC off Amazon isn’t even better than that? This is the open-ended illogicality of preference-based listening tests.

If the device is supposed to be a “DAC”, it can do no more than meet the objective definition of a DAC to a tolerably close degree. How do we know what “tolerably close” is? Well, if we were to simulate the known, objective, measured error, and amplify it by a factor of a hundred, and still fail to be able to hear it at normal listening levels in a quiet room, I think we would have our answer. This is the one listening test that I think would be useful.

Advertisements

The Sound of a Symphony Orchestra

Last night I went to a symphony concert: Shostakovich’s 10th, preceded by Prokofiev’s Piano Concerto No. 2 at the West Road Concert Hall, Cambridge.

west roadWe were sitting in the second row from the front – so quite close to the piano. I wish I had taken a photograph, but I was so paranoid about my phone ringing mid performance that I left it turned off! The image above shows the empty venue.

We really enjoyed the concert. Chiyan Wong is an amazing piano soloist, and CCSO were spectacular. The sound was formidable from a large orchestra, and we got to hear the fairly new Steinway grand in great detail – the piano was removed during the interval, for the Shostakovich that followed.

Now, I do often listen to this sort of music with my system, but this was the first time I had been to a concert to hear this specific Russian ‘genre’. Of course I couldn’t help but make a mental comparison of the sound of the real thing versus the hi-fi facsimile that I am used to, as I was listening. And you know what? I have to say that a good hi-fi gives a pretty good rendition of the real sound.

The real thing was very loud, but also very rich – I have observed that ‘painfully loud’ is more a function of quality than volume; you need good bass to balance the rest of the spectrum. So this was very loud, but at no time painful. Bass from the orchestra was wonderful, but didn’t take me by surprise – I sometimes hear such bass from my system. (It did take me by surprise the first time I heard it from a hi-fi system, however!).

Some people cite piano as being the most difficult thing for a hi-fi system to reproduce. I don’t know where they get that from: I loved the sound of the piano, and I think a good system can reproduce it fairly easily.

I was struck by the homogeneity within the different sections of the orchestra. Listening to a recording of just a piano, or just the violins, would not tell you very much about an audio system. It is only when you hear a combination of the piano, the violins and the brass, say, that any ‘formant’ (i.e. fixed frequency response signature) within your system would show up.

As discussed previously, ‘imaging’ of the orchestra was not as pin sharp as you get in some recordings, but many purist recordings portray the true effect quite accurately. The width of the ‘soundstage’ of a stereo system is more-or-less right, and the room you are listening in enhances the recording’s ‘ambience’ around and behind you.

Of course the concert is a very special experience. The stereo version isn’t always as deep, open and spacious, nor is the envelopment as complete but, all in all, I think if you sit down in the right frame of mind to listen to a fine orchestral recording using a good hi-fi system, you are getting a very reasonable impression of the sound, excitement and visceral quality of the real thing. And that really is quite an amazing idea.

Room correction. What are we trying to achieve?

The short version…

The recent availability of DSP is leading some people to assume that speakers are, and have always been, ‘wrong’ unless EQ’ed to invert the room’s acoustics.

In fact, our audio ancestors didn’t get it wrong. Only a neutral speaker is ‘right’, and the acoustics of an average room are an enhancement to the sound. If we don’t like the sound of the room, we must change the room – not the sound from the speaker.

DSP gives us the tools to build a more neutral speaker than ever before.


There are endless discussions about room correction, and many different commercial products and methods. Some people seem to like certain results while others find them a little strange-sounding.

I am not actually sure what it is that people are trying to achieve. I can’t help but think that if someone feels the need for room correction, they have yet to hear a system that sounds so good that they wouldn’t dream of messing it up with another layer of their own ‘EQ’.

Another possibility is that they are making an unwarranted assumption based on the fact that there are large objective differences between the recorded waveform and what reaches the listener’s ears in a real room. That must mean that no matter how good it sounds, there’s an error. It could sound even better, right?

No.

A reviewer of the Kii Three found that that particularly neutral speaker sounded perfect straight out of the box.

“…the traditional kind of subjective analysis we speaker reviewers default to — describing the tonal balance and making a judgement about the competence of a monitor’s basic frequency response — is somehow rendered a little pointless with the Kii Three. It sounds so transparent and creates such fundamentally believable audio that thoughts of ‘dull’ or ‘bright’ seem somehow superfluous.”

The Kii Three does, however, offer a number of preset “contour” EQ options. As I shall describe later, I think that a variation on this is all that is required to refine the sound of any well-designed neutral speaker in most rooms.

A distinction is often made between correction of the bass and higher frequencies. If the room is large, and furnished copiously, there may be no problem to solve in either case, and this is the ideal situation. But some bass manipulation may be needed in many rooms. At a minimum, the person with sealed woofers needs the roll-off at the bottom end to start at about the right frequency for the room. This, in itself, is a form of ‘room correction’.

The controversial aspect is the question of whether we need ‘correction’ higher up. Should it be applied routinely (some people think so), as sparingly as possible, or not at all? And if people do hear an improvement, is that because the system is inherently correcting less-than-ideal speakers rather than the room?

Here are some ways of looking at the issue.

  1. Single room reflections give us echoes, while multiple reflections (of reflections) give us reverberation. Performing a frequency response measurement with a neutral transducer and analysing the result may show a non-flat FR at the listening position even when smoothed fairly heavily. This is just an aspect of statistics, and of the geometry and absorptivity of the various surfaces in the room. Some reflections will result in some frequencies summing in phase, to some extent, and others not.
  2. Experience tells us that we “hear through” the room to any acoustic source. Our hearing appears not to be just a frequency response analyser, but can separate direct sound from reflections. This is not a fanciful idea: adaptive software can learn to do the same thing.

The idea is also supported by some of the great and the good in audio.

Floyd Toole:

“…we humans manage to compensate for many of the temporal and timbral variations contributed by rooms and hear “through” them to appreciate certain essential qualities of sound sources within these spaces.”

Or Meridian’s Bob Stuart:

“Our brains are able to separate direct sound from the reverberation…”

  1. If we EQ the FR of the speaker to obtain a flat in-room measured response including the reflections in the measurement, it seems that we will subsequently “hear through” the reflections to a strangely-EQ’ed direct sound. It will, nevertheless measure ‘perfectly’.
  2. Audio orthodoxy maintains that humans are supremely insensitive to phase distortion, and this is often compounded with the argument that room reflections completely swamp phase information so it is not worth worrying about. This denies the possibility that we “hear through” the room. Listening tests in the past that purportedly demonstrated our inability to hear the effects of phase have often been based on mono only, and didn’t compare distorted with undistorted phase examples – merely distorted versus differently distorted, played on the then available equipment.
  3. Contradicting (4), audiophiles traditionally fear crossovers because the phase shifts inherent in (non-DSP) crossovers are, they say, always audible. DSP, on the other hand, allows us to create crossovers without any phase shift i.e. they are ‘transparent’.
  4. At a minimum, speaker drivers on their baffles should not ‘fight’ each other through the crossover – their phases should be aligned. The appropriate delays then ensure that they are not ‘fighting’ at the listener’s position. The next level in performance is to ensure that their phases are flat at all frequencies i.e. linear phase. The result of this is the recorded waveform preserved in both frequency and time.
  5. Intuitively, genuine stereo imaging is likely to be a function of phase and timing. Preserving that phase and timing should probably be something we logically try to do. We could ‘second guess’ how it works using traditional rules of thumb, deciding not to preserve the phase and timing, but if it is effectively cost-free to do it, why not do it anyway?
  6. A ‘perfect’ response from many speaker/room combinations can be guaranteed using DSP (deconvolution with the impulse response at that point, not just playing with a graphic equaliser). Unfortunately, it will only be valid for a single point in space, and moving 1mm from there will produce errors and unquantifiable sonic effects. Additionally, ‘perfect’ refers to the ‘anechoic chamber’ version of the recording, which may not be what most people are trying to achieve even if the measurements they think they seek mean precisely that.
  7. Room effects such as (moderate) reverberation are a major difference between listening with speakers versus headphones, and are actually desirable. ‘Room correction’ would be a bad thing if it literally removed the room from the sound. If that is the case, what exactly do we think ‘room correction’ is for?
  8. Even if the drivers are neutral (in an anechoic situation) and crossed over perfectly on axis, they are of finite size and mounted in a box or on a baffle that has a physical size and shape. This produces certain frequency-dependent dispersion characteristics which give different measured, and subjective, results in different rooms. Some questions are:
    • is this dispersion characteristic a ‘room effect’ or a ‘speaker effect’. Or both?
    • is there a simple objective measurement that says one result is better than any other?
    • is there just one ‘right’ result and all others are ‘wrong’?
  1. Should room correction attempt to correct the speaker as well? Or should we, in fact, only correct the speaker? Or just the room? If so, how would we separate room from speaker in our measurements? Can they, in fact, be separated?

I think there is a formula that gives good results. It says:

  • Don’t rely on feedback from in-room measurements, but do ‘neutralise’ the speaker at the most elemental levels first. At every stage, go for the most neutral (and locally correctable) option e.g. sealed woofers, DSP-based linear phase crossovers with time alignment delays.
  • Simply avoid configurations that are going to give inherently weird results: two-way speakers, bass reflex, many types of passive crossover etc. These may not even be partially correctable in any meaningful way.
  • Phase and time alignment are sacrosanct. This is the secret ingredient. You can play with minor changes to the ‘tone colour’ separately, but your direct sound must always maintain the recording’s phase and time alignment. This implies that FIR filters must be used, thus allowing frequency response to be modified independently of phase.
  • By all means do all the good stuff regarding speaker placement, room treatments (the room is always ‘valid’), and avoiding objects and asymmetry around the speakers themselves.
  • Notionally, I propose that we wish to correct the speaker not the room. However, we are faced with a room and non-neutral speaker that are intertwined due to the fact that the speaker has multiple drivers of finite size and a physical presence (as opposed to being a point source with uniform directivity at all frequencies). The artefacts resulting from this are room-dependent and can never really be ‘corrected’ unambiguously. Luckily, a smooth EQ curve can make the sound subjectively near enough to transparent. To obtain this curve, predict the baffle step correction for each driver using modelling or standard formula with some some trial-and-error regarding the depth required (4, 5, 6 dB?); this is a very smooth EQ curve. Or, possibly (I haven’t done this myself), make many FR measurements around the listening area, smooth and average them together, and partially invert this, again without altering phase and time alignment.
  • You are hearing the direct sound, plus separately-perceived ‘room ambience’. If you don’t like the sound of the ambience, you must change the room, not the direct sound.

Is there any scientific evidence for these assertions? No more nor less than any other ‘room correction’ technique – just logical deduction based on subjective experience. Really, it is just a case of thinking about what we hear as we move around and between rooms, compared to what the simple in-room FR measurements show. Why do real musicians not need ‘correction’ when they play in different venues? Do we really want ‘headphone sound’ when listening in rooms? (If so, just wear headphones or sit closer to smaller speakers).

This does not say that neutral drivers alone are sufficient to guarantee good sound – I have observed that this is not the case. A simple baffle step correction applied to frequency response (but leaving phase and timing intact) can greatly improve the sound of a real loudspeaker in a room without affecting how sharply-imaged and dynamic it sounds. I surmise that frequency response can be regarded as ‘colour’ (or “chrominance” in old school video speak), independent of the ‘detail’ (or “luminance”) of phase and timing. We can work towards a frequency response that compensates for the combination of room and speaker dispersion effects to give the right subjective ‘colour’ as long as we maintain accurate phase and timing of the direct sound.

We are not (necessarily) trying to flatten the in-room FR as measured at the listener’s position – the EQ we apply is very smooth and shallow – but the result will still be perceived as a flat FR. Many (most?) existing speakers inherently have this EQ built in whether their creators applied it deliberately, or via the ‘voicing’ they did when setting the speaker up for use in an average room.

In conclusion, the summary is this:

  • Humans “hear through” the room to the direct sound; the room is perceived as a separate ‘ambience’. Because of this, ‘no correction’ really is the correct strategy.
  • Simply flattening the FR at the listening position via EQ of the speaker output is likely to result in ‘peculiar’ perceived sound, even if the in-room measurements purport to say otherwise.
  • Speakers have to be as rigorously neutral as possible by design, rather than attempting to correct them by ‘global feedback’ in the room.
  • Final refinement is a speaker/room-dependent, smooth, shallow EQ curve that doesn’t touch phase and timing – only FIR filters can do this.

[Last updated 05/04/17]

Data Over Sound

Just saw this mentioned. It’s interesting how an idea that, years ago, was just a method of harnessing existing technology, can re-appear as something funky and brand new. It joins those other technologies that aim to get data into our devices via cost-free, non-contact interfaces, such as QR Codes.

What is Chirp?

A Chirp™ is a sonic barcode. With Chirp technology, data and content can be encoded into a unique audio stream. Any device with a speaker can transmit a chirp and most devices with a microphone can decode them.

People of a certain age will be familiar with the use of audio cassettes as storage for their microcomputer programs back in the 1980s – I think I used reel-to-reel for a time.

I also remember, round about 1980, sending a computer program over the phone to a friend’s house by holding the phone close to the speaker and picking the sound up at the other end with a microphone. As I recall, our version wasn’t really very reliable or practical, but I think we did succeed in sending a short program. Obviously we were inspired by the audio coupler modems that we might have seen in films and documentaries.

full

SMPTE and MIDI timecodes can be recorded as audio signals on analogue tape and can survive multiple transfers and, I dare say, would be robust enough to work over a speaker-microphone link.

In the 1990s we were all familiar with ‘the sound of data’ when we used dial-up modems.

Over the years we have also had DTMF dialling, audio watermarking, Shazam, Siri, Alexa etc. and phone-based automated systems using speech recognition, all of which have to deal with extracting ‘data’ from noisy audio. You would think that the new audio barcodes should be pretty simple to make work reliably.

The Secret Science of Pop

secret-science-of-pop

In The Secret Science of Pop, evolutionary biologist Professor Armand Leroi tells us that he sees pop music as a direct analogy for natural selection. And he salivates at the prospect of a huge, complete, historical data set that can be analysed in order to test his theories.

He starts off by bringing in experts in data analysis from some prestigious universities, and has them crunch the numbers on the past 50 years of chart music, analysing the audio data for numerous characteristics including “rhythmic intensity” and “agressiveness”. He plots a line on a giant computer monitor showing the rate of musical change based on an aggregate of these values. The line shows that the 60s were a time of revolution – although he claims that the Beatles were pretty average and “sat out” the revolution. Disco, and to a lesser extent punk, made the 70s a time of revolution but the 80s were not.

He is convinced that he is going to be able to use his findings to influence the production of new pop music. The results are not encouraging: no matter how he formulates his data he finds he cannot predict a song’s chart success with much better than random accuracy. The best correlation seems to be that a song’s closeness to a particular period’s “average” predicts high chart success. It is, he says, “statistically significant”.

Armed with this insight he takes on the role of producer and attempts to make a song (a ballad) being recorded at Trevor Horn’s studio as average as possible by, amongst other things, adjusting its tempo and adding some rap. It doesn’t really work, and when he measures the results with his computer, he finds that he has manoeuvred the song away from average with this manual intervention.

He then shifts his attention to trying to find the stars of tomorrow by picking out the most average song from 1200 tracks that have been sent into BBC Radio 1 Introducing. The computer picks out a particular band who seem to have a very danceable track, and in the world’s least scientific experiment ever, he demonstrates that a BBC Radio 1 producer thinks it’s OK, too.

His final conclusion: “We failed spectacularly this time, but I am sure the answer is somewhere in the data if we can just find it”.

My immediate thoughts on this programme:

-An entertaining, interesting programme.

-The rule still holds: science is not valid in the field of aesthetic judgement.

-If your system cannot predict the future stars of the past, it is very unlikely to be able to predict the stars of the future.

-The choice of which aspects of songs to measure is purely subjective, based on the scientist’s own assumptions about what humans like about music. The chances of the scientist not tweaking the algorithms in order to reflect their own intuitions are very remote. To claim that “The computer picked the song with no human intervention” is stretching it! (This applies to any ‘science’ whose main output is based on computer modelling).

-The lure of data is irresistible to scientists but, as anyone who has ever experimented with anything but the simplest, most controlled, pattern recognition will tell you, there is always too much, and at the same time never enough, training data. It slowly dawns on you that although theoretically there may be multidimensional functions that really could spot what you are looking for, you are never going to present the training data in such a way that you find a function with 100%, or at least ‘human’ levels of, reliability.

-Add to that the myriad paradoxes of human consciousness, and of humans modifying their tastes temporarily in response to novelty and fashion – even to the data itself (the charts) – and the reality is that it is a wild goose chase.

(very relevant to a post from a few months ago)

The Trouble with Hobbies

Have you ever suddenly been inspired to embark on a brand new hobby?

Maybe you’ve never owned a boat before, but having seen one chug by on the river you have thought “I’d love to do that!”. A quick browse in the classified ads shows lots of boats that look fine, and they don’t cost all that much. Basically any boat would be great, and you could gradually do it up, even if it is a bit shabby now. In your mind’s eye, your family will love you when you are able to take them on spur-of-the-moment, cheap weekends messing about on the water, starting in a few weeks’ time.

From this high point where the world is your oyster, you begin to take the advice of the magazines and other experienced hobbyists. Before you have even owned a boat, you become aware of the hierarchy of boat owners, and the boats that would render you a laughing stock if you owned them. You become aware of the general consensus on different types of bilge pump – not something you ever wanted to know. You begin to form an idea of the boat you should really go for – and it is not one of the bargain basement jobs you first saw. You might just about be able to stretch to a boat that would put you in the lower echelons of boat ownership but, importantly, not on the very lowest rung. You could always, perhaps, move up from there over time.

It now turns into an all-consuming hobby with the goal of having a boat on the river at the end of the year. In the end it costs thousands, and your children have grown up and left home before your boat finally takes to the water. You hit a bridge and rip the top off your boat the first time you take it out. You feel sick and abandon the whole hobby (a true story).

That’s the nature of male hobbies. They start out as wonderful, spontaneous ideas, but can turn into nightmares – mainly due to the existence of other hobbyists! Audio is one of those hobbies, I think. Ridiculously, the prices paid for bits of audio knickknackery rival the costs of boats.

A person could be seized one day by the idea of hi-fi as a way to improve their life, buy an amp and some secondhand speakers off Gumtree for £100, and plug their tablet or laptop headphone socket into the amp using a £2 cable. Hey presto, a hi-fi system that will sound much better than what they had before, and which has tinker-ability via the buying and selling of speakers and the audio streaming/library software options; there is no urgency in changing the amp and tablet hardware as they are pretty much perfect in what they do. The speakers are almost like pieces of furniture, so the person can indulge their tastes in how they look as well as how they sound, and they can be restored using standard DIY skills – a nice mini-hobby.

But what if the person does the natural male thing, and starts to read the magazines and forums? Immediately they will realise that their tablet’s headphone output is a joke in the audio world. They need to spend at least a few hundred pounds on a half-decent ‘DAC’, plus a couple of hundred on a budget cable. And of course, this is only for convenience: real audio quality can only be had if they own a decent turntable and a special vibration-free shelf to put it on. Where do they go from there? They need to make a decision on which turntable and which cartridge to go for. They need to take a view on cables, power conditioners, valve or solid state amps, accessories like cable lifters and record cleaning machines. Each decision, they are assured by their fellow hobbyists, will result in “night and day” differences in the sound.

After some months agonising over it, they assemble a beginner’s system for about £3,000 – they will upgrade as budget allows. It sounds OK, but they know that even though the brand is a highly recommended one, the particular model of valve amplifier they could afford has “hints of a slightly reticent mid range” – one of the magazines said so – and if they listen carefully, perhaps they can hear that… But the more powerful 18 Watt model cost £800 more and they decided against it. Perhaps they made the wrong decision. The nightmare unfolds…

Tasseomancy

Here’s a bit of a discovery (for me, anyway – and as yet they have only a few thousand listens on Spotify). They’re a Canadian duo (twin sisters) called Tasseomancy, a name that refers to the art of tea making…

I imagine that fans of Kate Bush will love this. I really like Dead Can Dance & Neil Young, the opening track from their latest album Do Easy. The track Missoula is beautiful:

The near field listening chair

stereo-lays-an-eggI often read around various audio forums in order to try to understand the world of audiophilia. One common theme seems to be:

  • Measurements at the listening position are important, and can be interpreted directly as good and bad. Good = flat (or, by rule of thumb, a slightly downward-tilted frequency response); bad = non-flat frequency response.
  • There is no limit to what can be justified in order to get ‘good’ measurements at the listening position. Floor-to-ceiling speaker arrays; huge panel speakers; multiple subwoofers; diffusers; absorbers; traps; DSP-based ‘room correction’.
  • It is acceptable for the system to sound poor everywhere in the room except for a single seat.
  • The size of the speakers may be such that they loom over the listener disconcertingly, but this is considered acceptable.

What is really happening is that audiophiles are trying to get the recorded signal beamed directly, and anechoically, to their ears while sitting in a room. This is the logic of seeking ‘perfect’ measurements at the listening position and what gives rise to speakers that dominate the room.

It occurs to me that the whole thing could be scaled down to a fraction of the size, and could give even better measurements, largely removing the influence of the room (which is what the logic of ‘perfect’ measurements is seeking).

Ultimately, the audiophile could sit in an armchair close to some pretty small speakers – that could even be mounted on the chair. By only being a couple of feet away from the listener, they can be relatively low powered, yet with more-than-adequate bass. Room reflections become far lower in proportion compared to the signal than with ordinary speakers, giving that ‘anechoic’ sound that audiophiles are (whether they know it or not) pursuing. The restriction to a single listening seat is no disadvantage as we have seen. Ambient volume becomes much lower, so this would be ideal for listening late at night without disturbing the neighbours.

Such chairs already have a precedent as in the image above (! time for a revival?). And some people already do prefer near field listening – those who sit at a desk with reasonable quality speakers either side of their PC monitor are experiencing something similar.

However, I don’t think the audiophiles with room-dominating speakers really are seeking “that anechoic sound”. It is only the the idea that “speakers and room are a system” with the assumption that the two should sum to the recorded signal, that is giving rise to huge, room-dominating systems and a single listening seat. The unfortunate audiophiles are constantly getting closer and closer to ‘perfection’ while their systems sound worse and worse. People back in the 1970s had a far better listening experience.

I think Siegfried Linkwitz is one of very few people who understand this:

A listening room is the modern equivalent to forest and savanna. We still use the now hardwired portions of the hearing process but adapt them to the new situation. We still can ignore the static background, in this case the room and the fixed loudspeakers, and automatically focus our attention on the direct sound, even when it creates an illusion….

Two-channel playback in a normal living space can provide an experience that is fully satisfying as loudspeakers and room disappear and the illusion of being transported to a different place and moment in time takes over.