Axel,
I find it interesting, what your speaker designer has to say about "unpleasantness", when massed instruments are being played. Possibly he has a point. I have a hunch why this could indeed often be the case. On the other hand I don't want to start the old dogfights between analog and digital afficionados here again, because that usually leads to nowhere, except for abuse and bad feelings. Let me state thisis here quite clearly. I love and need both media. But....just for my ears and well being, big orchestral classical music leaves me stone cold on digital, there is too much missing in subtle information. It does not frighten me, but it bores and annoys me, makes me nervous. It is too far away from what I experience at concert. Whereas for Jazz, small combos, voices, some, not all chamber music I prefer digital over analog. It simply has more presence and "reality". Why not ask you speaker-man, if he also listens to analog and if he experiences the same thing there. If so, I would suggest, that his speakers are at fault.
This, by the way has nothing to do with what Timtim had to say. I agree with him, he follows the same line as I set out in an earlier post here.
Cheers,
Detlof |
Hey Axelwahl ... a simply GREAT post that started this thread ! Thought provoking and interesting. Here's my 2 cents:
I have always looked at high end audio as a Yin or Yang thing, and that exact mentality served me very well during the years I spent selling high end audio. I found that most everyone falls into either one category or another ... They like a warm smooth sound, or they like a brighter and dynamic sound. One of these two will usually evoke the right emotional listening experience. Another kind of listener wants it ALL ! This almost always comes at a VERY high price, regardless of proper system matching, WHICH IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE !!! Great speakers have few flaws, and there are very few of them that fall into this category. Then you have the "audiophiles" who want the refined taut sound. These guys like systems that are VERY un-lifelike to real music. They are looking for some kind og polite kick drum sound which is WAAAAAY overly damped and lacking in emotion. MAny of these guys don't care about any frequency information below about 70 hertz or so. To me, these folks are almost short bus material.
All this brings me to this: There are two kinds of "scary" sounding speakers ... Those which do it with poor sound quality which deviates from reality. Speakers that have frequency areas that are elevated or cut to make the speakers sound more startling ... TRASH in every sense of the word.
The other type of scary speaker is one that can reproduce lifelike dynamics without sounding strained or un-natural. This is ABSOLUTELY possible. My PSB Stratus floorstanding speakers can make your eyes flinch shut while playing a recording of a drum set at true to life listening levels. Kick bass from these literally hits you in the chest ... HARD. Cymbals crash and you want to escape.
They have the same effect with horn ensembles, or ANY dynamic music for that matter.
Another thing that can do this is my Hsu Research subwoofer with the Stratus in my home theater. When it thunders and you are in the next room, you duck for the nearest shelter ! I do indeed know what you are talking about when you say " scary" speakers, and yes .... It is intoxicating in the very best ways possible ! |
"Only a speaker that does MOST EVERYTHING extremely well, can cause this sort of problem -- it is a phasing/timing related issue and mostly becomes 'unpleasant' uneasy, unsettling, all the stuff I been going on about, if massed instruments e.g. full orchestra and such are played.
He said a lot more, but I'll keep it short lest I be remanded of pushing some agenda."
Hmm, I tend to think that line level source electronics and pre-amp are more likely the cause of uneasiness in more cases like this than the speakers, but that's just my own personal observation. |
Hi Axel, I really don't get all of what you are trying to say in your post to me. But- I did speak to the designer of the High Emotion Audio speakers, and he had some comments about poorly designed M-derived crossovers found in a lot of other loudspeakers.... That might give you a clue as to what he is up to. So far I've not seen any published graphs, but given the way they behave on the variety of amps we've played them with (both tube and solid state) its obvious that they do indeed have a very flat impedance curve.
I'm not actually in the business of selling speakers, frightening or no. I am a manufacturer of amps, and FWIW if an amplifier manufacturer starts selling speakers, the other speaker manufacturers around will be far less likely to recommend that amplifier product! So I stay the hell away from that.
I don't get the 300b comment at all... |
Hi Detlof,
I had a most interesting discussion on the subject to day with a speaker designer, call him 'elitist'. I guess he wouldn't mind to be called that, good for him :-)
He knows EXACTLY what this is all about, and he immediately said: Only a speaker that does MOST EVERYTHING extremely well, can cause this sort of problem -- it is a phasing/timing related issue and mostly becomes 'unpleasant' uneasy, unsettling, all the stuff I been going on about, if massed instruments e.g. full orchestra and such are played.
He said a lot more, but I'll keep it short lest I be remanded of pushing some agenda.
Makes me feel like I talk about UFOs the way some folks have never heard such...
Greetings,
Axel
There you go |
If at all, you have to experience the whole chain to find out if you're comfortable or not. Not so?"
I'd say so. |
Oh dear.......
Axel, how are 300Bs scary? The NOS ones? Yes they scare my pocketbook. Cheap Chinese replacements? Yes, they scare when they blow. In Wavacs, NO, pure heaven, where then prey do they scare then?
Besides, I doubt if a speaker or any component is scary by itself. If at all, you have to experience the whole chain to find out if you're comfortable or not. Not so?
Cheers, |
Hi Atmasphere,
you guys selling "frightening" or "relaxing" speakers to each other?
Flat impedance 'curves', ha!? Lines please!! Straight!
300B to go with the deal, so to scare the hell outa ya :-)
Cheers,
Axel |
Cdc, I was referring to the S- series, with the new tweeter. It is without question one of the faster tweeters made, and they really had to work at it to get the woofer and crossover to keep up. But they did it, and also got the impedance curve to be quite flat. As a consequence, the speaker is easy to drive- we get excellent results with our smallest amps driving them. |
Hi Mrtennis,
I think you are so close!
It actually depends completely on the "consonant or dissonant" quality of your cables ---.
:-)
Axel |
music that frightens, depending upon one's personality, may not necessarily be the fault of a stereo system.
i think it is more useful to consider the term consonant or disonant with one's sonic preferences, in lieu of frightening or relaxing. |
CDC asked :
:Question is, will the micro talls (my room is 13' x 15') run on only 22 wpc? How about a 50 wpc gainclone?"
They'll "run" and probaly sound OK, depending how loud you listen, but probably not reach full potential in regards to realism in the low end.
50-80 watts into 8 ohm largely doubling into 4ohm would be more like it for best results. |
Mapman, the Ohms look like a better value. I would like to try them at home once I come up with a worthy contender. Question is, will the micro talls (my room is 13' x 15') run on only 22 wpc? How about a 50 wpc gainclone? |
Cdc,
I certainly cannot speak for Atmasphere, but I suspect Ralph was referring to the S series High Emotion models that appear to use their unique wide dispersion tweeter technology.
I think OHMs are most likely a different beast from the High Emotion design in terms of high power, high current SS power amplification being needed to produce best results with the OHMs.
I suspect the High Emotion S series speak's impedance curves are more friendly to tube amplifiers than is OHMs if Ralph recommends these for use with his amps.
Also the HEs appear to require a separate sub-woofer to go truly full range which ups the price for full range performance whereas the larger OHM Walsh speaks do this pretty well on their own without a sub. |
Hi all,
looks like that thread is also done for, finished... Cross-over arguments been beaten to hell in some other places, and harmonics --- which, ahh what?!
But, thank you for sharing...
Axel
PS: still too frightened (not again!) to look into that 'cables' thread. Talking about elitist, whow. Maybe tomorrow :-) |
Axel,
Nope, we ain't gonna fall. Not even if pushed or shoved. (((:
Happy listening,
Detlof |
Thanks Detlof,
gives me comfort to have someone not restricted by some 'correctness', which as you mention appears to be more part of perception than I might have appreciated.
That's quite SOMETHING!
Like try argue with the crowd about Mozart and chamber-music, while they want to listen to rap... on a boom-box? (in overstated terms, yes. Lest we create a storm).
Wrong time wrong place for sure.
Are we ‘Falling Down’ soon?
I hope not :-)
Greetings,
Axel |
Atmasphere, which High Emotion speaker are you talking about? The "S" or Pipedreams? Not real big on woven cones though. Funny, but tonight I was just trying to think of ANY speaker that I actually liked. One without some type of compromised sound. One was Talon (but only heard once with Rowland gear so who knows for sure?) and the other was some really tall speaker at Sound by Singer in NYC with about 40 drivers. Must have been the Pipedreams - wasn't there to listen to them but got stuck in the room for a while.
Anything else like these that are sensibly :-)) priced? How about Ohm? Or should I just stick to my 4" paper cone single driver - flat into the 50's?
Thanks
FWIW your amp was in my list of amps.... and I like solid state. The others were Aleph and chip-amps. |
Axel, you have certainly set out on a difficult path and will certainly meet with a lot of denial. Come to think of it, there are only a few speakers around, which will meet up to the standards you set forward. You're right about phase shift also. If phase is not right, throughout your entire system you will not get the feeling, that you could, say in a string quartett, walk around each of the four players who perform in your room. It spoils the illusion and DOES cause discomfort. This of course would mean that you're listening at a level, which many don't even have a clue about and this again would make you elitist, which of course is politically quite incorrect. You'll get flac, but never mind that, because I strongly feel that you are on the right track. What is a stereo worth its cost, if it does not give you pleasure, comfort and solace in difficult times. 'Nuff said, I'll get back to my music........(:
Happy listening,
Detlof |
Thanks Detlof,
come to think about it, this phenomena is NOT just reserved to speakers alone.
I had even some tube pre-amp do this, differential design using 6H30 you might know.
No power amp ever, they can just get boring or annoying, but never with any class A designs. They just kill me in summer with their heat, giving me heat-exhaustion...
I had it with some interconnects RCA and XLR, some producing truly 'spooky' effects, which I could only explain with some weird phase shifting.
Never really with speaker cables either, closed-in yes, too much glare yes, but not this uneasy stuff.
I also had it with some CD player using a tube in the output, made in China...
As to speakers, as I also mentioned earlier, some VERY pricy items. Two or three in my own listening room and I couldn't wait to have them removed, gave me the willies.
It is this background that made me inquire, to see how other folks are faring in this regard.
Greetings,
Axel |
Axel I agree what you say about the so called "highly resolving systems". I won't mention names here, but amongst them is gear highly revered by audiophiles who've never seen a concert hall from the inside and have their pockets emptied by gear which has nothing to do with how music can and should sound. They are happy with what they've got and I respect that and would never tell or argue that there are systems at less than a tenth of their cost which are much closer to the real thing. There is for example one manufacturer, whose gear you could only afford if you have a couple of oil wells in your backyard, who in his literature prides himself that his designs are all realized without listening tests but are based on pure "science". How unscientific can you get! Listening to one of his setups for a longer stretch of time will cause you discomfort if you are used to live concerts. Strangely enough, the manufacturers I have in mind are mostly European. Seems Japanese and US SOTA High-Enders listen to what they put on the market. Some of them, like Ralph Karsten of Atma-Sphere are musicians of their own right. |
Hi Detlof
I think I'm fully with you, and it is what I, or some other contributor, might have earlier on described as "goose bump" factor.
All composers mentioned (all of my own choice) only make real SENCE if that happens. That is just great!
Maybe all you guys have these marvellous transducers and systems --- should I be jealous?
The stuff I'm on about is somehow UNRELATED to the original intend of the music. You will be able to hear that difference, - I can.
In a life performance a real blast, rattle and shake is creating 'good' fear, a kind of aw, for lack of a better word.
But some highly resolving systems give you a kind of unnatural, unrelated, unease -- as if something is not RIGHT. People refer to something sounding RIGHT, so there is the opposite too.
Axel |
Again, the deepest register of an organ for example, which is at 16 hz will cause the sensation of fear in you. It is first and foremost a physiological thing, the psychological reaction coming second. You will have the same sensation of unease listening to the first bars of "Also sprach Zarathustra" on a system capable of plunging to those depths. Most systems cannot and you need not be overly sensitive to feel uneasy here. Especially the composers of the romantic period, but in earlier as well as later times, tried through rhythmic and melodic means to trigger quite specific emotive responses in their audience by compository means which are taught in music theory to this day. Wagner is an absolute master in this, but also Schubert und Bruckner, even Bach in his great Passions. no matter what some seem to have to state here, *IF* you have the ear and gear for it and the necessary sensitivities, you will, when listening to your music through the years ,have experienced *ALL* emotive states, which you are capable of. A suden bout of fear, having your hair stand up, can certainly be one of them. I am thinking here especially of Sibelius and R. Strauss. This has nothing to do with my disliking certain passages of certain music, be it, that I don't like the interpretation or the recording process and then there are of course systems, where only politeness forbids to have me leave the premises precipitously with much mumbling and cursing..... |
Hi Mrtennis
I hear what you say, but maybe it misses a fine point here. We do get attracted to things that can be unsettling, or frightening ---- until it gets too much, or until we realise/notice what is happening to our emotion. Not such a cut and dried affair as you like to have it.
Your approach is totally RATIONAL, but humans are not only rational!
Ever noticed in the presence of a VERY attractive woman, you are attracted and uneasy all at once, even scared...
It is that sort of irrational response that some people like to ignore away --- but these responses are there with us never the less.
Greeting,
Axel
PS: I get he idea that you might like what Ayn rand in “Atlas shrugged” had to say. “The theme of Atlas Shrugged is the morality of rational self-interest”.
If it does not ring a bell, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged |
hi axel:
many responses to sound are within our control. one can choose to get angry , or sad, or frightened.
we humans are not just passive actors. i think you exaggerate the significance of sound to create fear responses. i will chose to dislike sound rather than be frightened of it. |
When I said "There is still more to it that I know..."
We are talking about music (mostly, I hope...) and how odd, the matter of harmonics has not been brought up at ALL this far?!
There is this quality of 'jarring' in sound. I would relate that to an unsettling, unnerving kind of discomfort experienced.
If the proper / real / natural harmonics are not correctly reproduced, what will happen?
Even-order harmonics and their overemphasis (distortion!)seem to be of far lesser import and are often experienced as even desirable/pleasant (tube gear).
Odd-order quite to the contrary.
Too much odd-order emphasis might just render the same piece of music more or less disturbing / unsettling / frightening, or?
Food for thought.
Axel |
Hi,
I just try to answer some inputs here.
>>> it's not the equipment, it's our fears--irrational or real.<<<
Well, then it IS OUR OWN EQUIPMENT, it's the major part of the audio chain, no? :-)
>>> it's all in your mind. if i listen to the sound of a thunder storm on a stereo <<<
Not true! (for me anyway) I don't know where you live, but in my part of the world if there are thunderstorms you DO KNOW it is going on, yet every thunder-clap preceded by a lightning-strike, going on over some period time, to make sure some 30min - 1hr, it will truly get VERY unnerving and not only for the dog!
Yeah, it's "our equipment, it's our fears--irrational or real."
We do have responses and as mentioned some time earlier can get 'hardened' i.e. don't jump and screem, but unsettling it will remain.
As to the other query about x-over change, equipment etc.
The change of ONE resistor in the resonance compensation circuit of the tweeter managed to move C. Wilson rendition from ~ mixed/odd to unsettling of sorts.
First R = 5R6 Kiwame 5watt, its replacement = 5R6 MRA5 (Mills 5watt)
Now you tell me! The circuit is notching a ~ 15kHz tweeter resonance.
What front end to my ears?
I said CD, so: ML309S, ML326S, PassLabs X350.5, Burmester 961 -- the room.
Analogue: SME 10, SME V, vdH Silver Hybrid, Fidelity Research XF-1 type M, ML326S phono-modules
(chain working in differential i.e. XLR, both analogue and digital)
I hope that has answered most of it.
Thanks for your inputs,
Axel
PS: Trying to work on that fright-thing still --- I do prefer the most detailed and beautiful sound to draw me into the music, and just NOT having my nerves rattled about. There is still more to that I know... |
hi mapman:
it's all in your mind. if i listen to the sound of a thunder storm on a stereo, i will not be frightened. there are sounds that are not loud that warn of impending danger that can frighten. it has nothing to do with sound, but rather conditioing, between stimuli and responses.
it's not the equipment, it's our fears--irrational or real. |
"Real life sounds are dynamic and could frighten you if they were to happen silence to loud, especially when you were not expecting."
Yep.
Examples: bombs detonating, thunder storms, tympanis and other percussive instruments including pianos.
If the system reproduces these somewhat accurately without audible distortion or breakup on a good recording then that is probably a good place to be! |
Axel, remember just the time or phase alignment is different than time, phase and 'pulse' alignment. I don't remember or have not reviewed this recently, But I do remember Mr Dunlavy saying the last 'pulse' alignment is extremely crucial to get the tone right in addition to Time and Phase.
I don't know what is your background but I don't know what do you mean tweak my speakers x-over and made it alignment thing and sit back and expect the speakers to behave like the real thing.
What speaker are you using that frightens you? what kind of tweeters in there? What is the associated electronics? SS or Tube.
BTW my hand is down for the SW mentioned. May be I will get the software and listen. Tell me what track and time I should be looking out for.
No it is not open and shut case for me, and I doubt it ever will be. I am not the one go in to this kind of debate, but I really don't see solid evidence yet. I know my Dunlavys extremely well and what they can do with right sw and electronics.
Real life sounds are dynamic and could frighten you if they were to happen silence to loud, especially when you were not expecting. I don't think any system in the world can simulate real life, but many systems can damn well come close or create highly believable illusion.
|
There was some questioning of sw quality itself, and how that plays into it all. So let me give you a recording (CD, so sorry) Cassandra Wilson "Blue Light 'Til Dawn"
Any hands showing who has not listened to that? ------ can't see any.
Any hands showing who does not own it? ----- well, a few here and there.
But I'm sure we know all about it, so I’m not being too esoteric here, great.
My hand is up. |
Axel,
I did get through the entire Mahler's 3rd over the last couple days.
Unfortunately this particular lp set is perhaps one of the worst classical recordings in my collection however. An orchestra from eastern Europe I am unfamiliar with on a one-off label I am not familiar with as well.
The recording sounds like something recorded in the 1940's mastered for playback over early TV, very distant sounding with poor mix, response and dynamics and not a particularly insightful performance.
Oh well, it is what it is ( a budget binner picked up years ago) but luckily enough was presented to enable me to still enjoy what I heard, though I know it was sorely lacking compared to other recordings out there. I do need to pick up a new copy of another version I have heard and enjoyed, like the early Bernstein one.
The recording I have on VHS hifi tape off public radio that exposed me to this work was performed by the Oslo Philharmonic and really registered with me. |
Howdy,
McKillRoy is watching... There are some really good contributions, I think. Not even the usual sort of bickering :-)
Folks are loosening up and let it flow, that's really good because music and what reproduces music is a lot about that.
We are of course still essentially talking about sound Quality.
Quality of reproduction, also of the software that makes it do what ever it is.
There was some questioning of sw quality itself, and how that plays into it all. So let me give you a recording (CD, so sorry) Cassandra Wilson "Blue Light 'Til Dawn"
Any hands showing who has not listened to that? ------ can't see any.
Any hands showing who does not own it? ----- well, a few here and there.
But I'm sure we know all about it, so I’m not being too esoteric here, great.
Now, would that recording be able to unsettle you?
(Frighten is a bit strong I guess, but you get the idea...)
Will it be possibly boring? (hell, it surely ain't everyone’s taste in music, or?)
Now, to tell you my take.
I used to find it kind of ODD, pretty resolved (what do I know, using 961 Burmester), but all in all actually never managed to listen through the hole piece in one session, if I ever did. My apologies to you who just love it to bits, not me, but that's not the point I'm getting at.
So lately some changes have been implemented to my crossover, that thing that does this 'alignment' I keep grinding on.
Now it gets very close to be unsettling, I'm not joking please!
There is constantly 'stuff' going on there, it starts slowly but surely work me up.
I don't think Dave Brubeck "Time Out" will do that, neither "Jazz at the Pawn Shop"
Yeah, I mention these 'cause everybody and his cousin knows these.
That would make it a shut and closed case for Nilthepill's well perceived input.
Even that 1st order stuff, most nobody got into.
Why, because my box is 2nd order (Linkwitz-Riley).... over-engineered, yes?!
So, go change some components and get spooked?!
You tell me. Right now it looks like I’m on my next learning curve here.
Now I go have a smoke and think about what happening here.
It sucks to be wrong... but I guess that's what learning is all about.
Thanks for sharing,
Axel |
How about "pleasing" sound quality?
For me I might listen to 10 different systems that all sound different yet find each one "pleasing".
Bottom line for me is if it sounds "pleasing" to me I like it enough that I am anxious to spend time listening to it as opposed to having to disregard "fright" and force myself to listen. |
Nilthepill, I don't think I could put it in words any better.
Bravo! |
"So you take a recording you know and THEN go listen to this on a system such as I'm on about and see what happens."
With my current system, I can't think of any recordings that I have that are inherently "frightening" merely as a result of the way they are recorded. That has not always been the case though with some prior incarnations.
Artificial sounding? Yes. Less than perfect? For sure.
But IMHO, a recording is what it is. Most you care about are listenable I find once you accept the fact that some are inherently very good and some are way less than perfect or what you might like them to be.
No reason to listen to bad music on a bad recording now though is there?
With good music however, I find the recording seldom is a show stopper for me, unless the record, tape, CD or whatever is physically defective or damapged in some way.
Of course, also, it is not necessarily easy or cheap to assemble a system that is pleasing with most recordings.
Also, in the spirit of Mr T., I agree some might find an inherently poor, artificial or even mildly deficient recording to be "frightening" and some not since "frighten" describes an emotional reaction that will vary greatly from person to person. |
I think Axel is right in that about some speakers unnaturalness of certain details (electronic, staticky, far from true tone) that may contribute to 'frightening' effect.
But I don't think the time, phase, pulse alignment is the cause. IMO, like others have said the time, phase, pulse alignment speakers are one of the best types around capable (when fed with right electronics) of producing life-like natural sounds that gives you great illusion of you being 'there'. That is why I am still sticking with Dunlavy Vs for years. I have heard Vandy, Thiels and they also do superbjob in reproduction. But Same speakers I have heard with less than stellar electronics/source and produce unnatural sounds. I think the reverse is true also. These stellar electronics played back on these so called modern (exotic material tweeters, fancy shaped cabinets, overly tuned rooms and $$$$$ tag) sound similar results.
IMO, The Dunlavys ( and other time,phase,pulse alignment designs without fancy tweeters) reproduce what is fed. So in this it comes down to what is upstream of these speakers- electronics, source quality, recording, power and a room to certain extent).
Frightening is good when it is in recording and these speakers reproduce this when called for. Relaxing is also good when it is called for. Unnatural frightening and relaxing sound is what I would have a problem with also.
So in other words, Axel, your heart is in right place, but you are pointing to wrong reason (or shall I say* w/ all due respect* barking up the wrong tree ;-)) |
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. |
Hi Mapman,
can't argue with that now, can one? So you take a recording you know and THEN go listen to this on a system such as I'm on about and see what happens.
Can't 'blame' the software for it then, can you?
There are ways to take the sw out of the equation --- it's why we listen too OUR reference recordings to make sense about what's what.
Axel |
"It is NOT just superior 'clarity', it's some form of unnatural 'emphasis',"
Often its just the way something is recorded which is seldom the same as listening live. Its difficult to equate the two. |
Thank you Ggavetti for your input.
I think you said it very well, but I do feel in no way to have a different 'take' as such. What you describe is IMO the result of a particular 'design preference'.
The detail you mention, somehow brought to the fore so it becomes unnaturally dominant, is caused by something.
It is NOT just superior 'clarity', it's some form of unnatural 'emphasis', so at least is my understanding.
The rest I go on about, is trying to get to the bottom of THAT question. I absolutely think it is an alignment related thing --- but I do not mind to learn that I am wrong with this.
Greetings,
Axel |
I resonate with Axelwahl argument, but for partly different reasons. There are speakers that I have a hard time listening to for long listening sessions. In general, these are speakers that reproduce too much detail. When I say "too much" I mean a very simple thing: these speakers reproduce details that cannot be detected when you sit in a good auditorium. The resulting sound is not natural because it is not close to the real thing. Interestingly, it looks like at least some audiophiles love detail, and they confuse extreme detail for realism. And you frequently read reviews in major audio magazines that focus more on that little detail that speaker X reveals and that other speakers hide. I personally think that this is nonsense: in audio there should be a simple, real benchmark: the real thing. As far as I am concerned, the best speakers are those that get as close as possible to the real thing. Those that get as close as possible to the kind of experience you have when you sit in a good seat in a good auditorium. In my experience these speakers are as emotionally involving as a concert, but they do not tire you. What drives listening fatigue, at least in my experience, are deviations from the real thing. Of course there might be people who love heavy doses of detail. That is totally fine, and in fact there are speakers that deliver just that. In my humble opinion, however, these speakers miss the whole point of audio reproduction. |
There is only one way a speaker will ever frighten me...The high price. Some things would not sell as well if the prices were not overly high. Too bad WE have to pay so much for marketing and advertizement. |
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? |
Mrtennis
right you are, yet there is a common theme, we are NOT that different after all. People 'start' get 'startled' and if for SOME reason this keeps going on in the wrong place (phase) and time (timing) it starts to make you edgy and uncomfortable rather than getting drawn into the music, yes?
Why, this would happen is really the question. My notion this far is a 'bad' dispersion pattern, in true Hi-End often the trade-off in favour of reduced insertion losses, or simply put a more 'basic' crossover design, and look no further then 1st order, with only one component per slope at its minimal 'best'. It will produce stacks of lobbing (call it comb-filtering at its best :-) and thereby produce an unpredictable, call it 'wonky' in-room response, call it amplitude distortion, right?
As with all things Audio, I agree, that's what some folks are looking for, to give you that extra 'kick', if it works for you. In my case, I'm more prone to get a freak-on if piano starts to sound like a cembalo, a violin, like a cello and a male singer like a woman or visa versa. I kind of overstate it somewhat to get this point across...
All this may not be the case at all, IF (say it again IF) you sit nicely in the sweet spot ---- where ever that is!? You can make it up then, as you move some this a way, or some that a way… have a cembalo here, make it a piano there, honky-tonk when you dare to stand up, etc.
Greetings,
Axel |
without being a reactive person, you won't be frightened.
the personality of the listener is being completely ignored.
opinions are interesting, but some are wild and defy common sense. |
Ah, ok. I see what you were up to and why you couldn't just come out and explain it. That would have tainted your experiment.
Hi IQ or not, the guy sounds like a total whack job. ;-) |
All right then,
dan_ed, this might answer your question, and I hope at least be a bit more fair to Unsound with his 'quip':
>>> Axe[l], Perhaps we [have] a language problem here, both receptively and expressively. <<<
Actually Unsound is right, after having thought a while about it.
What I have done here, is to take essentially a speaker designer's "alignment design choice"-conflict to the congregation of the listeners.
It gives me a first hand notion what Phaedrus in "Zen and Motorcycle Maintenance" did when he asked his students to write a QUALITY essays, but since QUALITY is not really definable, they got very uneasy, up-set, don't know what is it I'm supposed to, say or do.
I'm getting some of this type of feed-back. There might be some that don't know this Classic by Robert M. Pirsig and feel yet even more, hm - out of it, - for lack of a better expression.
Please, this is not some wacky game here, it was the genuine attempt to see what comes up from this forum, with regard to the QUALITY of either 'frightening' or rather 'relaxing' sound.
As it seems, and quite rightly so I guess, there is just no definitive answer ---- and so the designer has to follow what he feels is best for him/her, and live with the consequence of this decision. (Go bust if it was wrong)
Thank you for sharing, and your interest I thought it was of some value, and I hope not only just for myself.
Many thanks,
Axel
PS: If are intersted to have some more back ground on the Zen ..., and Prisig check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig |
You put it right there: IF! --- they are indeed in the recording.
I concede they ARE NOT, and are made-up by an amplitude response issue. Now I do not understand you either. Do you mean that the details you heard on these unnamed speakers weren't really in the recording? Or, are you saying that the details I hear in my own system are not really in the recording? If it is the former I don't see how we can discuss what you heard because I didn't hear what you refer to. If it is the latter then I'm afraid you have no basis for such a statement since you haven't heard my system. |
This generally well regarded version conducted by Bernstein is the commonly available recording on CD that I am most comfortable with and have recommended to others.
http://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Symphony-No-3-Lieder/dp/B00000JQGV
Others more knowledgeable regarding Mahler recordings here might be able to make more educated recommendations than I.
BTW the one I personally like best that I have heard (it was the first I ever heard this work so I may be biased) is a live radio performance I recorded to VHS hifi tape years ago. I still have it...will need to break it out though I currently have no way to play it on my main system. |
