Some of the best imaging I've heard from a box speaker was a pair of floor-standing Nesteroviches. I couldn't believe that such a klunky, traditional-looking speaker could disappear so completely. They were very well set up in a room, oh, 25' deep x 15' wide, with lowish ceilings, not much room treatment to speak of. Horowitz and Ben Webster fully occupied the space behind the speakers. Very impressive. Also they are beautifully balanced, tonally speaking. Nesterovich himself is long gone, unfortunately, but you can occasionally find them used.
I demoed the BAACH system. The tech guy dials in to your Mac and sets it up. They're very nice and offer a ton of support, but I heard almost NOTHING--seriously, almost no effect at all. We talked about my ProAcs and the room, both of which are not terribly bad, IMO. Finally he asked about my hearing, if one ear is different from the other. Most certainly. My left ear is very frequency-limited, and the tech said that will negate the desired effect! I kept the demo for a few days to play for an audiophile friend who has superb hearing, and he could hear the effect very well. But neither he nor I liked the "processed" sound. Bear in mind that this was a rough test in a modest system. It costs nothing (except a temporary charge on your credit card) to try it. Clealry not for me, though.
|
@mijostyn
+100 on over treating being better than under treating. Especially in smaller rooms where control is even more important.
|
+1 to mijostyn post ...
The third dimension is not instruments at different distances away from you, any system can do that and much of it is artificially created by the mixing engineer with echo. The 3rd dimension is the sense that and instrument or voice is a 3 dimensional object in space. If that space is full of reflections, echo and amplitude smear you will not be able to delineate the 3rd dimension at all. This is the state of most systems including some incredibly expensive ones.
I understand his point here but we must had the right balance between all surface (reflecting-diffusive and absorbing) then we can have too much room treatment if one of the three factor is unbalanced with the others for a specific room geometry size and content ..
A good live recording with a horn section is a great example. A top notch system will allow you to identify each instrument in space. Most systems show you the horn section, but you can not separate the instruments easily, the same applies to vocal sections. The spatial cues are usually there, but acoustic errors can easily overcome them because they are at a much lower volume. IMHO there is no such thing as too much acoustic treatment. An anechoic chamber is better than a poorly treated room.
I used my own mechanical equalizer with 100 distributed resonators located at specific places and this is more than passive acoustic treatment. We can create not only good imaging and holography ( the third dimension which is the sonic volume of each instrument ) but the end goal more than imaging done right is the listener envelopment (LV) Source width auditory (ASW) ratio.
But no, an anechoic room is a dead space , unnatural, it is better a bad room we will improve ... ☺😊
|
@mahgister Please answer this simple question. A recording of a trio. Guitar, Bass and Sax. The recording engineer has mixed the final tape to have all three mics/instruments playing an equal signal from left and right channel. This puts the sound of the recording with all three instruments in the center of the stage. Are you claiming there is any stereo equipment or room treatment, or combination of each that will produce a playback in my listening room where the three instruments are spread out across the room, and for good measure, the sax is in the center and five feet in front of the guitar and bass? That is what I called into question with the statement, if it’s not on the recording, it’s not in your listening room. Cheers
The notion that everything remains at the mercy of the mastering tech and his recording’s limitations/inadequacies is a bit time warped and assumes that everything remains the same as it was 50 years ago
Some very smart guys at Dolby, DTS, Yamaha, Sony, etc got together and advanced technologies in object based/spatial audio to address just this. You would need a minimum of 6 speakers ( 2 fronts, 2 surrounds, 2 heights) to do justice to their spatial upmixing codecs. The speaker count would go up from there depending on how nitpicky one gets. If you have a native spatial mix, that’s great. But, they will try to salvage even crappy stereo mixes.
In other words, these codecs can decompose the recording and "spread it out" in a 3-D dome (aligned with your multi speaker perimeter) and create all kinds of depth wise layering, spatial nuance/cues and detail, that’s simply impossible in stereo.
If you are an ardent believer in 2 speakers only, BACCH can do a relatively dumbed down version of the above mentioned and offer something relatively convincing.
Some new FPGA dacs (hrtfs, whatever proprietary code’s in there) used in purist stereo will try to create an even more dumbed down version of the above mentioned
You could try to help things out with speaker design (concentrics are an example), positioning, etc. For example, if you have speakers flat against a wall and sit flat up against a wall (no 6 to 8 ft of space behind you), everything goes to sht from there, etc.
|
ATCs are known for their off axis sound. Sealed box.
|
@polkalover The most difficult aspect of audio system performance is imaging. There have been many articles written on the subject. Relatively few audiophiles have heard a system image at the state of the art. Most systems can image well to a point, about 90%. It is that last 10% that is difficult to achieve. @mikelavigne made some great suggestions, limiting the number of crossover points and room symmetry are very important. The speakers have to see identical, but mirror image environments. I would also like to add a few points and suggestions. Early and even some late reflections can ruin imaging. There are three ways to optimize limiting reflections, sitting closer to the speakers has it's limits, choosing speakers with controlled dispersion and finally acoustic treatments of the room. Horns and ESLs are examples of speakers with controlled dispersion. ESLs can be formatted as full frequency line sources which IMHO is the speaker type with the best radiation pattern of all. They send virtually no sound to the side walls, ceiling or floor. An example would be any of the 8 or 9 foot Sound Labs speakers. Omnidirectional speakers will never give you the ultimate image in any room and you have to use a lot of acoustic materials to get even close.
Next is an issue you will not see covered often and that is identical sonic performance between the two channels. No two speakers are exactly alike and you can not place them in exactly the same location. They will have different amplitude response patterns or rather, they will not have identical frequency response curves. When one speaker is louder than the other at any given frequency the image is smeared towards the louder speaker. Thus the image can be smeared back and forth at various frequencies killing the 3rd dimension, that last 10%. The third dimension is not instruments at different distances away from you, any system can do that and much of it is artificially created by the mixing engineer with echo. The 3rd dimension is the sense that and instrument or voice is a 3 dimensional object in space. If that space is full of reflections, echo and amplitude smear you will not be able to delineate the 3rd dimension at all. This is the state of most systems including some incredibly expensive ones. The only way to achieve sonic symmetry is by measuring each channel independently then adjusting amplitude over the frequency range. I limit adjustments to between 100 Hz and 12 kHz. You do not have to have a flat response, you have to have identical frequency response curves. Flat actually does not sound so hot. Studies have shown that the best response curve in most residential situations is boosted bass below 100 Hz with about 2 dB/oct attenuation above 1000 Hz.
Imaging is always going to be best at the listening position and on a line perpendicular to the speaker axis through the listening position. There is no such thing as a "wide sweet spot". However, it would be nice to be able to hear the far speaker clearly and again line source speakers are best at this because volume does not fall off near as drastically as point source speakers when you move away from the loudspeaker.
As Mike Lavigne suggests accurate bass is a vitally important aspect of system performance and easily the most difficult portion of the spectrum to optimize. The reason is interference patterns in residentially sized rooms and resonance of this that and the other. Bass is incredibly physical. If I play a 30 Hz test tone at 85 dBs you can hear a symphony of buzzing and rattling in the house. This is usually completely masked by the music. I attack only the rattles I can hear. Room control can only do so much and subwoofers often do more damage than good, but sometimes you have to dance with the devil especially if you were to chose another ESL, and that is a whole other subject. The problem with your MLs is they cross to a dynamic driver at 375 Hz, right in the most important part of the midrange. Remember 256 Hz is middle C! The electrostatic portion of the Ethos can not handle lower frequencies because it is curved. An enclosed dynamic speaker is dramatically different than an ESL. The difference below 100 Hz can be gracefully dealt with, but above 100 Hz not so much. IMHE no ESL can gracefully handle bass below 100 Hz and this is where you have to dance with the devil.
@toddalin This is a great point. You can not know what SOTA imaging is until you have heard it. You have to know what you are missing and you have to delineate the problem in order to attack it. I have many studio recordings that you can tell the vocalists and instruments are in totally different environments and probably recorded at different times and frequently in different studios. I focus on live recordings or recordings in which the entire band is playing together in the same room. Great imaging helps to delineate individual instruments. A good live recording with a horn section is a great example. A top notch system will allow you to identify each instrument in space. Most systems show you the horn section, but you can not separate the instruments easily, the same applies to vocal sections. The spatial cues are usually there, but acoustic errors can easily overcome them because they are at a much lower volume. IMHO there is no such thing as too much acoustic treatment. An anechoic chamber is better than a poorly treated room.
|
I agree that a lot of studio recordings are two dimensional. The images sound great but they all line up in one plane. There are exceptions like that Blue Turk, that I mentioned- really good recording from the early 1970s. Cowboy Junkies‘ Trinity Session was recorded with a stereo mic in a Church. It has a great spacious soundstage that sounds fantastic on modest and grand stereo systems.
I stream a lot of music on Qobuz now. The music produced by the big name studios has much better dynamics and 3D soundstage vs. a lot of these lessor known studios. Voices will move to the left or right and then back to center on some songs by less well known bands. But I still love all the music, the large selection on Qobuz. A number of gems to be found.
I appreciate live recordings more with my current speakers. The large spacious soundstage of live recordings come across as interesting and enjoyable.
|
|
|
It is common place fact that you cannot create inexistent acoustic information which is not already recorded but a bad room will impede and/or deform this acoustic information ...
My contention remains, it is in the recording, NOT in the system or room treatment. Those can only improve what is on the recording, but not create what isn’t there.
the problem is that the speakers/room content/ears is the main factor in the translation of the recorded acoustic information through your your room/system acoustic parameters ...The dac price matter but is secondary compared to the acoustics parameters... That is my point ...Most people think that the dac will do miracle....What they call the recording is the bits in the dacs...What i call the recording is the acoustic trade off choices chosen by recording engineer ( or the mixer)
A common place evident fact do not replace acoustics.. 😊
And in any stereo system even in top acoustic room there is some spatial acoustic information that cannot be translated acoustically right. It is why the Choueiri filters are more than a tweak or a gimmick. It is acoustics science fact...
But it is evident that the information must be in the recording AS ACOUSTICS INFORMATION recorded by the engineer... Nobody can dispute that ...
Reading your post i know that you know what i spoke about. Then i apologize because i commented one line of your post out of context ...
|
First i dont like albums too much mixed in studio...😊 I listen classical and jazz...
Second you got it wrong right here : the room acoustics and your acoustic room/ears parameters will translate the sound imaging and soundstage recorded by the recording engineer set of trade-off choices for you in a wrong or in a good way... The recording so good it is will be acoustically deformed or well rendered, but it is all related to your speakers/room content /listener position and the right balance between absorption/reflection/diffusion...( the bass problem must also be solved ) ...
Most people dont even know that because their system/room is so mediocre that the soundfield is almost captive of the speakers plane ...😊
But the acoustic information must be in the recording to begin with , here you are right. But you lost it when you forgot that the acoustic coupling parameters of the speaker /room must be tuned to gave to us ALL acoustic information in the recording to begin with...
A good dac cannot replace speakers"room acoustics. Even the powerful Choueiri dac will not do it but will help you to do the speakers/room right ...
@mahgister Please answer this simple question. A recording of a trio. Guitar, Bass and Sax. The recording engineer has mixed the final tape to have all three mics/instruments playing an equal signal from left and right channel. This puts the sound of the recording with all three instruments in the center of the stage. Are you claiming there is any stereo equipment or room treatment, or combination of each that will produce a playback in my listening room where the three instruments are spread out across the room, and for good measure, the sax is in the center and five feet in front of the guitar and bass? That is what I called into question with the statement, if it’s not on the recording, it’s not in your listening room. Cheers.
|
Can’t create what is not there, but what if it’s there and your system can’t re-create it? You wouldn't know that it's there when it is.
|
My system also does all that. Steely Dan is a favorite for imaging and a wide soundstage. The instruments and sound effects are floor to ceiling and wall to wall. With many recordings of bigger bands, it's very clear how one horn is in the back row compared to another. It's there in the recording and most any decent stereo will give you a good sense of stage image. My contention remains, it is in the recording, NOT in the system or room treatment. Those can only improve what is on the recording, but not create what isn't there.
|
@toddalin
I think I understand your point now. I doesn’t matter if the lead guitar is on the left or right it is the fact you can hear different instruments in their own space? This is how most all the music I listen to sounds like. It’s nice that everything isn’t jumbled together in a big wall of sound. I can enjoy how each instrument sounds individually. Happy listening.
Ron
|
On my stereo system I can hear singer‘s voices about 6 feet above the floor and their guitars about 3 feet or so above the floor. Some Eric Clapton albums, for example are like that. His unplugged album you can tell he is sitting down. His voice is a little to the right and about 4 feet above the floor and his guitar about 3 feet. I have heard several other albums/singers like that- even if they are to the left or right. I don‘t know how my system does it. And sometimes the voice is 3 or 4 feet above the floor with the instruments at the same level. Chorale pieces are very exciting. Voices in some recordings extend up to the ceiling and beyond the walls.
Different recordings have different imaging.
|
@mahgister Please answer this simple question. A recording of a trio. Guitar, Bass and Sax. The recording engineer has mixed the final tape to have all three mics/instruments playing an equal signal from left and right channel. This puts the sound of the recording with all three instruments in the center of the stage. Are you claiming there is any stereo equipment or room treatment, or combination of each that will produce a playback in my listening room where the three instruments are spread out across the room, and for good measure, the sax is in the center and five feet in front of the guitar and bass? That is what I called into question with the statement, if it's not on the recording, it's not in your listening room. Cheers.
|
Yes! The chosen position of the instrument/vocal is supposed to be exactly where the engineer placed it in the soundstage and you should be able to discern this location/position. It makes no difference whether it is real or contrived, so long as it is what was intended. In the L&M cut, you should be able to hear the musicians as if they are spaced out in a room infront of you each occupying his own space and not as a "wall" of sound.
|
@toddalin
How can one know what the chosen position of instruments is? Do you know where the instruments are supposed to be on the stage in every song you ever listen to?
Regards
|
Thanks for your reply ...
But sorry you miss my point completely...
This then reveal the general audiophile misunderstandings about acoustics concepts reduced to mere room acoustic panels...
I was stating that no system, or room for that matter, can reproduce something that is not embedded in the recording to start with. There is no magic.
First the gear system reproduce bits or electrical weaves, but your speakers coupled to the room/ears TRANSLATE these acoustic waves in acoustic information about the initial recording trade off using the parameters of your ears and the parameters of your HTRF and your location and the parameters of your acoustic room content .
What was recorded were chosen acoustics parameters resulting from a trade-off choice by the mics type and location , not bits and electrical waves in which they were encoded, what was recorded by the recording engineer trade off choices need to be acoustically translated in a correct acoustical balance and under controls in your room for your ears.
Then even a good system in a bad room will not translate all the spatial characterics of the sound even if they are POTENTIALLY there in the coded bits or electrical and mechanical waves of the vinyl, ask Dr. Edgar Choueiri not mahgister... 😊
And yes when all is done right magic exist...
Why do you think i am happy ? Not because of my gear price tags 😁 but because of the way i embedded and modify it to optimally translate for my specific Ears and HTRF what is recorded ... It is not perfect but very good ratio S.Q. /cost...
There is magic...It is called acoustics... There is magic... It is called music well translated in my room...
When i came here more than 8 years ago i was confused... It is only by acoustics experiments that i could figure out how to install my system and how to cure upgraditis ignorance .. Before upgrading we must learn basic... Nobody claimed that elementary truth for me in audio forums... They all sell their favorite gear as solution...
It is not because most people cannot afford the time and the necessary free room to experiment that the truth must be banned ... 😊
Acoustics concepts rule audio (not mere acoustic panels) not price tags ...
Magic happen with acoustics when coupled with the synergetical gear design ...
|
"As @patrickdowns touched upon briefly with instrument placement I don’t see why so many here look for which instrument is where in a song. Are there more genres than classical orchestras that play music in such a way? Does most everyone here listen only to classical music? Surely it doesn’t matter as much in a studio where everyone is standing? And the sound is in the hands of the engineers anyway. With classical music being a small part of the world of music I fail to see the importance of what instrument is where in a song. I have some classical music in my Qobuz library and it sounds good but I really just want the music I like to listen to to sound great and not worry about what is where. Am I missing something to listen for that would improve my listening experience ? I listen to 60s 70s 80s 90s etc."
I do find it important as to where instruments are placed in the sound field and want to hear them in their "chosen" position. Case in point.
|
@mahgister I understand your love and dedication to acoustic principals. It makes up the heart of most of your posts.
Your comment :
Than this sentence is not even wrong and like describing the realitty in reverse order like if walking on your head was normal 😁:
"If it’s not on the recording, it’s not in your listening room" — BINGO @bigtwin !
is totally irrelevant in the context to which it was made. I was not discussing the virtue of proper room acoustics, nor how the lack thereof will diminish the ability to hear all that could be presented by a recording. I was stating that no system, or room for that matter, can reproduce something that is not embedded in the recording to start with. There is no magic. Cheers.
|
All imaging is Phantom, adjusting volume; phase; other things engineers know how to do, beginning with their skill with specific microphone types and placement for various voices or instruments, recording spaces, musician's placement .....
Precise reproduction of the media containing their intentions is very important.
......................................
LP Imaging:
Sound characteristics, preferences are subtle, read reviews, listen ...
Imaging: I only consider cartridges with wide channel separation (30db, 28db, higher number is best for imaging (if it exists in the source as noted), and tight center balance (1.0 db; 0.5db harder to find)
The combination results is both wider and more precise, thus more perceivable imaging. Individual musicians, i.e. where's/there's the bass player, there's the trumpet/trombone .......
|
It got a next level experience lesson in "sound staging" when listening to the Steinway-Lyngdorf Model B system. I pride myself having listened to so many different systems and rooms over the years, but this delivered something very special. A real "stage", quite addictive. I did a series of videos about it all on my little channel. Maybe it will be of interest to you?
|
First all stereo system nevermind their price, because they are two speakers sound source are flawed... Read Choueiri acoustical articles...
Second if your room is not very well acoustically balanced you will not hear what is in the recording because your speakers/room is not optimally under controls enough to TRANSLATE in your own room and to reveal all spatial acoustic information contained in the recordings...
Than this sentence is not even wrong and like describing the realitty in reverse order like if walking on your head was normal 😁:
"If it’s not on the recording, it’s not in your listening room" — BINGO @bigtwin !
You will listen what is in the recording only if you compensate for the crosstalk effect of any stereo system impeding any acoustical spatial information and only if your room is acoustically controlled and well balanced with the speakers/listener location / room coupling..
Why then someone can say the opposite of reality ?
it is because people think erroneously that acoustics parameters of the recorded room are automatically reproduced right in their own acoustical environment because their dac or turntable are TOP gear paid a high price 😋... Sorry you need acoustics controls of the room , filters for the crosstalk and even ideally inner ears measure and HTRF measures ..
Gear fetichism dont replace acoustics science...
|
@deep_333
Are you talking about sound that wraps around and behind you like surround sound ?
|
"If it’s not on the recording, it’s not in your listening room" — BINGO @bigtwin !
One of my big concerns in re: high-end audio and the recording arts, is that the VAST majority of people listen to music on crappy systems (Bluetooth speakers!), or with earbuds, or in the car, and have very low expectations and sophistication as to what well-recorded music can and should sound like. We with good systems are in the minority, and record companies probably don’t much care about our needs. Maybe.
Thankfully, those aren’t the driving factors in how music is engineered and recorded overall, or we purists would be listening to vastly inferior recordings and our good systems would be rendered impotent. We still have engineers, producers, artists, and masterers who strive to achieve the best reproduction possible within reason. Bless them. (Yes, direct-to-disc , reel to reel master tapes etc aren't common and are expensive).
|
It appears (in light of some speaker suggestions mentioned above) that many have very low standards for what is "3D", "deep", "huge", "enveloping" or not... 😁
You could also get the Theoretica Applied Physics BACCH processor (forget speaker shopping)...3D holographia for ages! In support of your quest, it is a significant enhancement even if some speaker design you acquired is a bit of a dud.
But, if you do go with the higher end concentric driver designs suggested above (they can do a good job on their own..In fact, it is a characteristic trait of such designs). But, they can as well be taken to the umpteeenth level with BACCH.
Good luck.
P.S.
I use a TAD E1TX w/ BACCH. Not to brag here, but, you ain’t heard 3D envelopment from 2 speakers until you heard something like that. Following the science is generally a good idea for guys on quests.
|
I run a BSG qol Signal Completion Stage processor which takes my system "to the next level" in imaging. My Thiel CS6 speakers image very well but the qol gives it added depth and focus. I would recommend trying this before buying new gear. TAS and Stereophile reviewed this piece and both reviewers liked it. The audiophiles who have heard my system have had a very strong favorable reaction. One was nearly incredulous and asked, "How do you get so much depth?" A BSG qol comes up for sale ocassionally but you have to watch for it. They usually go for around $1k (they were $4k when new). I bought an extra one in case this one fails.
Another option is the Carver C9. I have one of these also and it works reasonably well but the BSG is better. They sell for cheap so it's not much of a risk to try it. I'm going to sell mine but I haven't gotten around to it.
I haven't heard a BACCH but it seems like it does something similar to the Carver C9. I'm looking forward to hearing this when I have an opportunity.
I've been to three audio shows and I have heard maybe 3 or 4 systems that could match my system in imaging. The MBL 101E's ($80k) were one example. Another was a system with Von Schweikert Ultra 11's ($325k) and a third was with YG Sonja 3.3 ($140k). My point here is that I'm skeptical that you are going to get world class imaging with the budget you propose but if you go with conventional cone speakers you may like the imaging effect better than your ML's. I haven't heard the Ethos but other ML speakers I've heard are no slouches in the imaging department but they have a different character than typical box speakers that's a matter of personal taste. I don't know how well a signal processor will work on an electrostatic speaker but it wouldn't cost too much to find out.
|
mihorn, Unfortunately this is not the cleanest most natural sounding system in the world, sorry to burst your bubble but there's a much better systems out there.
It is possible that my system is not the cleanest and the most natural sound system in the world. There can be many better sounding systems which I have heard yet.
Please kindly let me know what and where is that clean and natural sound system. Alex/WTA
|
I’ve been yapping about angle of dispersion; initial reflections; alternate toe-in for single or two listeners; and importantly for home theater: wide dispersion.
Just created this virtual system to illustrate my beliefs/advice based on many years
Toe-In Alternates: Stereo and Video
btw, viewing anybody’s system, open 1st image: top right corner, ’toggle full screen’ gets rid of the ads and shows image captions, and use side arrows for a slide show.
|
My stereo system has great imaging. How great, you ask?
Well, one time I spilled my drink and I thought would get a cleaning bill from one of the performers.
Ba Da Bump.
But seriously folks...
Try playing Alice Cooper’s, "Blue Turk". It has a large, deep and spacey soundstage with instruments all around the stage front to back. Plus the guitar at the end goes progressively lower typically transitioning from the midrange to the bass driver. See how well your speakers integrate that.
And then play, "School’s Out" just because they played that song on the radio every spring through the 70’s.
|
@jhnnrrs Something else we have in common. Love of ESLs. I've owned Martin logan in the past. Kept them for 20 years. Now running a set of SoundLab Majestic 745s. Coming back to my main point, a speaker can't produce anything that is not embedded in the recording. The engineer crowds everything into the center, no speaker can magically spread the soundstage out. Likewise with depth of field. If it's not on the recording, it's not in your listening room. That's not to say some systems aren't a little better than others at reproducing soundstage, I'm simply saying that any exception that new speakers are the answer to creating it, is pure folly. IMHO. Cheers.
|
mihorn,
Unfortunately this is not the cleanest most natural sounding system in the world, sorry to burst your bubble but there's a much better systems out there.
|
@bigtwin Wow! Someone else knows about Opus 3, Test Record 1 - Depth of Image! It has been my standard since first hearing it while demoing Mission 770's back in 1981. The two standout cuts for me for depth are "Tiden Bara Gor" and "Polka from the Bolt". In the showroom the depth portrayed by the Missions was deep and wide and I bought them on the spot. Unfortunately, I was never able to reproduce that level of imaging at home until 2016, when I got a pair of Martin Logan ESLs.
|
@polkalover
What happens when you remove the table sitting between the listener and the speakers? I recognize that this is not a spouse approved move, but it might provide a no cost improvement. As mentioned above in reference to another poster, it is always helpful if we could see your components on your profile. I don’t have the expertise to analyze your component mix, but many here do.
|
Have you tried BACCH, with the newly added room correction feature built in? I believe that it can be a game changer for any system, no matter how expensive. It is priced well below your proposed budget and has a reasonable return policy if you are not happy with it.
|
As @patrickdowns touched upon briefly with instrument placement I don’t see why so many here look for which instrument is where in a song. Are there more genres than classical orchestras that play music in such a way? Does most everyone here listen only to classical music? Surely it doesn’t matter as much in a studio where everyone is standing? And the sound is in the hands of the engineers anyway. With classical music being a small part of the world of music I fail to see the importance of what instrument is where in a song. I have some classical music in my Qobuz library and it sounds good but I really just want the music I like to listen to to sound great and not worry about what is where. Am I missing something to listen for that would improve my listening experience ? I listen to 60s 70s 80s 90s etc.
|
Two specific ways to increase soundstage depth, as you seek. First, increasing the distance of your speakers from the front wall can have a huge impact. If this works in your room, it would be my first move. Second, consider a tube based amplifier. My McIntosh C22/MC275 do a much better job with depth than comparable solid state amps.
Also, are you working with a dealer or other professional? As noted above, this is a really complex process. An hour or two from an experienced person might be well worth the expense
|
I will second the Larsen and KEF suggestions. I have not heard the Larsens, but they are consistently reviewed well. And I have KEF Reference, the concentric design makes for a large sweet spot and very good imaging.
|
Suppose you buy a million dollar system and you don't like the sound.... what do you do then? I've had several systems over the years and it wasn't the most expensive that sounded the best. As for me, Martin Logan speakers sound really good.
|
Another direction is to get a quality subwoofer. I just bought a REL S510, and it is an amazing improvement to my two channel system.
|
I misunderstood when I suggested the Larsen 9, because you’d mentioned the MBL’s. You’re looking for imaging, but those two are omnis. Sorry! I am intrigued by the Larsens (and MBLs, which I have heard) because they throw up a "wall of sound" that is more like live music but with less instrument and voice image specificity. Many of us, myself included, are conditioned by front-firing traditional speakers, though some would argue that the imaging and precise soundstaging they offer is an artifice, not realistic to live music. Of course, much recorded music, especially if recorded in the studio with many tracks combined at the soundboard and mixed for effect, is an artifice. Other than orchestral and chamber music, much of what I listen to probably wasn’t recorded live with all the musicians in studio together, playing as they would on stage in performance.
All that said, people who know and love the Larsens warn that the experience is quite different than front-firing speakers, and the AbSound review says that also. They have some advantages apparently, like being able to be placed up against the front wall without harming bass response, and are less affected by sidewall distance and room effects.
I note that AbSound’s Jon Valin has as one of his reference speakers the top of the line MBLs with massive subwoofers. Big bucks!
|
Ps Audio FR30 ! The Ethos and mentioned comparable's would then collect dust.
A gift at that price point, find an audition…bring your wallet.
Cheers
|
I agree with what others have said about omnidirectional speakers. I recently heard a pair of German Physiks and can’t say I was impressed, very clean, airy, sound BUT absolutely no imaging. Everything sounded like it was all blended in together. All high end electronics in the chain. For $36,000, I was not impressed.
|
|
My Opus 3, Test Record 1 - Depth of Image, assists in speaker placement for greatest effect. The 16 tracks describe what you should be hearing and where. It's amazing (to me) how deep and wide the soundstage can be. Then I am disappointed at the vast majority of recordings that showcase very little of this. Leading me to believe 90% of the soundstage is in the recording and 10% is system dependent. It is my opinion that throwing a lot of money at new equipment will not change that.
|
Kef Blade is a very solid choice for imaging at the price point. It is not critical to be in the sweet spot although it does that well also.
|
IMHO omnidirectional speakers present a wide, deep sound stage but smear imaging. Vivid Giya series is my recommendation. Others I have heard are Borrensen, KEF Blades, Raidho, and Wilson. My experience is also electronics play a critical part. I did not realize the full potential of my Vivids sound staging and imaging until I upgraded from Krell to Burmester. Eye opening. Also power conditioning made a significant improvement in realizing the full potential. Finally, follow the well written recommendations from @audiokinesis and @mikelavigne - gentlemen, well said.
|
No ownership of anything at this level, but my guru says the MBLs are among the best sounding speakers available, but also says they're hard to drive and are brutally revealing, so need top amplification.
He's also quite positive about the Clarysis Audio speakers.
The same guy uses Magico S5 MkIIs, but cost may be part of the equation in that selection.
|
@polkalover Wrote:
Looking for the next level in imaging...
''Among the chief performance parameters we have identified are uniform polar response and directivity, smooth power response and low distortion. A secondary requirement is for accurate stereophonic imaging at close-in listening positions in the studio control room. A new family of constant directivity horns has formed tho basis of a new approach to monitor design, and we will now describe two monitor loudspeakers embodying them.''
See full article here!
Mike
|
