"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
i don't think philosophy has anything to do with the subject. i detect a tad of obsessiveness with the words "frightening" and "relaxing".

You are right, I guess I meant semantics and not philosophy. Nevermind, it just struck me, based on your many comments questioning the deeper meaning of audiophile semantics, that you would probably draw a strong distinction between "an African or European Swallow" in a discussion about "unladen air velocity" ;-)
My mentioning of Decartes has nothing to do with philosophy per se, but with the underlying premisses or a point of view, from wich someone looks at what he percieves to be real. In that sense, if we know it or not, we are all "philosophers".

Hi Axel,
If I had the choice, I'd always opt for a "scary" stereo. Life is too short to fall asleep over it or rather why be happy with the mediocre?? Even if you cannot afford what all the gurus are raving about, there are enough tricks and tweeks to make your stuff sing--if you have the patience, the passion and the ear for it.
Hi Detlof

you are the man, - go for the sexy and scary.
I guess you have a point, and who would want to argue :-).

I have to admit that I myself follow the path of 'tweaks' in search of higher attainment of 'quality' of sound also. But as soon as it slips of that narrow ledge between 'right' and 'wrong' I've no issue to do some back-tracking also.

I currently busy 'trying' to get some more 'energy storage' out of my cross-over. The most advanced 'tweak' as yet.
I have mentioned the 'measurement situation' in some earlier posts and how experiment always precedes technical explanation (science...) and the value of facts, and how facts seldom tell the hole truth (since we seldom if EVER seem to have ALL the facts...)

I mention this, because I had made a mistake in switching one cap incorrectly, quite major i.e. a 220uF in place of a 47uF. So instead of having 220uF + 47uF I wound up with 47uF + 47uF (parallel). The cleaner the treble got (some more fixes, resistors) the more one could tell something to be wrong.
I found my error and fixed it, so far so good. Now we went back to PSPICE and modelled the error to see the effect --------- if we wouldn't have know if was a wrong value, no way to pick it up in each and every one of the three graphs. So much for measurements, beware! (The caps where part of a mid-range RCL).

Greetings,
Axel
PS: That faulty XO just ticked me off, (like a girl with a BAD habit...)
Semantics are important in science and engineering but alone fall way short when it comes to accurately describing the nature of what one hears. Semantics of spoken language might be capable of relating enough to describe a general type of sound, but not the fine details that make most of the different between one good playback system and another. The translation from ears to language is a lossy one.
a good stereo system puts you to sleep, while a bad one frightens you. who wants to be frightened ? perhaps a masochist. does anyone belong to o-c anonymous ?