Originally Posted by kiwi2
But ultimately there is no one standard to aim for. Otherwise why don't all studios just use one particular set of speakers and that one set of speakers is all us general public use as well.
You left the two important parts out for that to work - you have to standardize the rooms as well.
Disclaimer: The following my view, my vision, my set of unanswered questions.
But there's little use in spending too much time thinking about the studio, first of all you cannot do anything about it and secondly I haven't found any systematic fault on recordings that apply to all material from all studios.
So, where do that leave us? It leaves us with the published media. If you look at CD, that's a well defined standard which tells us how to decode it. Most people would hopefully agree that amplifiers and cables are pure transmission links and should ideally do no other change to the signal than changing the signal strength(volume). That leaves us with one set of speakers, one room and one listener(or more). That's where the problems sit.
We don't want the speakers to be transmission links. The signal is two-dimensional, but that's not what we want to hear. The speakers are in best cases soundfield decoders, otherwise soundfield generators. We also complicate the matter by trying to reproduce sounds originally coming from one three-dimensional point by radiating sound from two points. So how should we achieve that in the best possible way? Placement, frequency curve differences for different directions... How similar are one listener to another from a biological point? And how much does the rooms change the results of this? How do we go from having a room to knowing what kind of speaker design that calls for? Or what to do to our room for a particular speaker model? probably a lot more issues
So back to the "one standard".... do we know the answers to all these questions if all research done was properly compiled together? If not, then there's still a job to do. If we do know, then we need to figure out a way to get the manufacturers to produce accordingly. I'm not saying that all brands should make the same speaker, we don't have the same room... but the information need for us to select the best speaker for the room we have could theoretically be supplied. Perhaps one could even take it so far that you could enter your room data into a digital loudspeaker builder program and it would calculate what speaker you would need to build for your room.
What about 'taste' then? Would above only be liked by some? My belief is that divergence in sound reproduction tastes is primarily based on the existence of large and multiple errors in the reproduction and that people prioritize fixing them differently... so that if we would manage to get rid of (minimize) them, the divergence in taste would go down. Things that could easily be change in the electric domain, like boosting bass, I have absolutely no problem fitting into the vision. Nor giving tools to help fix apparent mistakes on the media. HOPEFULLY there's no taste differences that requires physical changes to speakers once we have optimal speaker/room matching, but I can't know that. But if we assume there will be, my next pursuit would be to learn to quantify these and find ways for people to understand what they want so they could pick the optimal design for that taste.
And all this is based on the assumption that we should use two speakers for two channel recordings. Is that necessarily so? Could it be better optimized in another way, and is that way practically usable and possible to bring to market? Can we turn the argument around and determine a better way to reproduce sound in homes and push it back to the music producers to give us the media needed for that setup?Everyone should enjoy themselves, they deserve it!
This is not an easy thing to solve, but one does not need to complicate those parts that don't have to be difficult... that only hampers real progress.
And finally a reminder about the disclaimer, if you forgot it on the way... this is my