"Frightening" or "Relaxing" sound quality?


What do I mean by that?
Not that I wish to start a new controversy --- knowing some of the usual contributors, it may not be entirely avoidable, so let’s see what gives.

Following some of the threads on the –ultimate- ‘phase-coherent’, 'time-coherent' or yet better, both, 1st order up to steep slopes, an so on, cross-over opinions, I have these notions. So let me explain.

One quite well known ‘maverick’ (done some picking on some other well known reviewer, posting it on his site...), somewhere he states: a good speaker must have the ability 'to frighten you' --- his words, and I can see/hear what he means, at least I think so.

Some other dealer in Wilson’s marvellous products (he's around my place), tells me he can only listen for about ½ hour than he is 'exhausted' --- i.e. too intense to do any longer listening…

Nobody is talking about ‘listening fatigue’ actually, it is more an emotional fatigue, as far as I get it.

Now me, I go to a life orchestra listening and emerge pretty well ‘up-lifted’, never had any fatigue (maybe my bottom, when it got a bit too lengthy) never mind emotional fatigue! Gimme Mahler, Stravinsky, Mussorgsky, heavy (classical) metal, whow --- upliftment. Never occur to me run away, get uneasy, GET FRIGHTENED!

I clearly get ‘emotional fatigue’ listening to some types of speakers!
What were they?
I think they had one thing in common: They all where, in some way, VERY realistic, but they also had something else in common, --- they did not, as it seems, stick too well to a reasonably flat amplitude response… ah ha.

What this design regimen seems to produce during listening to keep on making you jump? Apparently always something rather unexpected in happening! Now we do also know what makes us (as humans) ‘jump’: it is some unexpected ‘something’ coming ‘out of the bush’ a snapping branch, some sort of VERY REAL sound, that does not quite go along with the general set of the acoustic environment.

Now take some ‘benign, dumb’ kind of speaker, it has so little in REALISTIC sound to offer, it just can’t frighten you. You (your instinct, subconscious) just don’t ‘buy’ into it.
Now take a VERY realistic sound-producer (the ones that can make you jump) and mess with the amplitude response, what you are getting is this on the edge of your seat reaction. The VERY opposite of what a lot of music has as its intention. (Not like AV ‘Apocalypse now’ kind of chopper going to attack you from any old angle, top, behind, etc.)

Lastly, has this something to do with why lots of folks perhaps shy away from these sort of designs?
I have listened to my share and I shy away, because as REAL everything seems to be in the reproduction, it keeps me in a state of inner tension, apprehension --- even listening to some Mozart Chamber music, as there is ALWAYS something very REAL, but somehow unsettling going on.

It might just explain why some of these designs don’t ‘cut the mustard’ and not survive in the long run. Unless, and open to opinion, that we are (most of us anyway) so messed up and transistor-radio-sound-corrupted that we seem ‘unworthy of these ‘superior’ audio-designs.
I honestly don’t think so, but you may have it otherwise, as they say YMMV.

I thought it is of value to bring this up, since it does not ever seem to be part of any of the more ‘technical’ discussions ---- the human ‘fright/flight’ element in ignoring proper FLAT amplitude response in favour of minimal insertion losses, or proper impedance compensation, notch filtering, et al, just so to obtain this form of stressful realism.

It might be also something to do with age, a much younger listener (in my experience) likes to be stirred up, and emotionally knocked all over the place ---- listening to Baroque music like bungee jumping?!
Maybe.
It be interesting to hear if it is just my form of ‘over-sensitiveness’ that brings forth this subject.
Best,
Axel
axelwahl

Showing 16 responses by unsound

The Dunlavy's realism has often been described as "spooky". The sense that someone has somehow broken in to ones room and is now singing directly in front of you is indeed "spooky", especially in the dark. Even in my modest system, I can be startled be the power and impact of an orchestral crescendo. I mean, how is that realism possible in my relatively small private room?
Axe, I beg to differ with you re: what constitutes a 1st order crossover. Your description certainly describes a simple 1st order cross-over, but, there are many ways to skin a cat. I have not objection to the use of extra components in the cross-over if they serve to improve the performance. I can respect that you might disagree, and feel they add more harm than good.
I completely agree with Detlof re: "scarry passages", and that is exactly what I'm refering to. Perhaps this is what the "maverick" reviewer was refering to, and you misunderstood?
Mapman, "latest and greatest"? Have we even heard these yet? Do we need to got down this path once again?
Gee, I've found some of the more "reasonably flat amplitutde response" speakers like Thiel and Dunlavy when coupled with the right(?) amplification quite capable of what I would describe as "startle" capability. I've also heard other brands that don't seem to make any claims for "flat amplitude response" demonstrate this "startle" capability. I suspect this is more a function of dynamics and amplification might have as much to do with "startle" capability as speakers.
I we are indeed talking about the same thing, I have indeed heard it at live events and many, many times. Of course viewing the event certainly lessens the surprise element.
Here's one example:
http://www.thielaudio.com/THIEL_Site05/Pages/Tech/d%26e.html
Seems to me that most of the "time and phase" deciples also embrace proper amplitude behaviour, just look at the steady impedance load of most "time and phase" designs.
Axel, "hangs up my box"?
If your suggesting that I'm being defensive of a brand that I've been, for lack of a better term; loyal to, I really don't feel the need to. Shoot away. What I'm suggesting is that your suppostiion as to why things might or might not be seems to be misplaced.
Axel, is English your first language? I'm having a hard time following you and I'm not sure when and where your being sarcastic, if your being sarcastic at all. "VC hardened"? Perhaps your unease can somtimes be blamed on amplitude problems and sometimes perhaps not. I think you are correct, in that "screwy mastering" can have a definite effect on the kind of problems I think your refering to. And yes, if the those problems(?) always exist regardless of the recording being played back, there is a system problem. On the other hand, if a system doesn't portray the problem with recordings known to have the problem, then we open the hornets nest of whether or not the system is indeed capable of true fidelity.
Axe, yes, I most cetainly do still get "startled", but I do believe that was the intent of performance.
I'm not that thin skinned and Ifind no afront to your posts. I'm just unclear as to your intended point.
Here is another simpler link:

http://www.thielaudio.com/
You will need to navigate through this web site to find the appropriate content.

Yes, the Thiels use a first order crossover. My understanding of that phrase has to do with the slope and not the count of components used to achieve it.
The components used in Thiels cross-overs compensate for driver irregularities, loading for steady impedance and yes, even amplitutde response. Along with selected drivers and cabinets that permit staggered positioning of drivers, the crossovers are used to make time, phase and amplitude correct speaker systems. Thiel is not alone in this regard, currently Green Moutain and Vandersteen amongst others use this approach and in the past Dunlavy and Meadowlark (which seemed to better fit your description of a 1st order cross-over) have also used this approach. I have yet to hear anyone accuse any of these manufacturer's of providing anything less than linear amplitude response.

I guess I'm saying that I think that your conclusion that "time and phase" designs have sacrafised amplitude response in that pursuit is unfounded.
Axe, Perhaps we a language problem here, both receptively and expressively.
I believe the lobing that you refer to in 1st order cross-over designs is mostly in the vertical plane. Most of the 1st order designs are known for their wide dispersion patterns. Even so, amplitude response is easily measured. At the recommended listening distances, most 1st order designs excell in these measurements. Now if you frequently like to dance, perhaps a differnt design might be more appropriate?
Mapman and I rarely agree, but, he is spot on here. Unless you were at the controls of the recording site, your "reference" doesn't offer you anything to refer to, it's still just fuel for comparison of playback systems.
With the same money, one will buy a Lamborghini and another will buy a Rolls Royce. Which is the better performer? It depends on the needs and/or demands of the buyer.
Newbee, I suspect that some people are more senstive to the "phase coherent, flat frequency response" attributes than others just as some others might be more sensitive to box resonance, or any other attributes often discussed here.