Solving the "complex music problem"?

What I do to test if my system is really capable of holographic sound , I will play music that are holographic like Pentatonix very easy to listen.Fairfield Four is onother cd I played.

I think Kota1 post is so true.On his other post he said good preamp can’t  compensate for the music that comes out since the source is the one responsible for that. Good dac and transport produce big soundstage IMS, especially if my speakers are further part at least 9 foot.Rememer big soundstage usually instruments are more easily detected on their proper place.Speakers placement does aa big part solving the problem playing complex music, cable as well.My Audioquest diamond interconnect is well known for 3D IMS.There are few cables are capable of holographic sound.Digital cable like the Marigo apparition Has more air and holographic than my d60 Kimber,  though the d60 is a bit more detail.Tube gear are also capable of 3D sound. This is considering the system is synergize.To really achieve the best out of your system, keep listening till you become  familiar with your components and cables and tweaks.

@ahuvia The conductor has the best seat in the house standing 6-7’ above the musicians inside the string section. The high priced seats are mid-hall center where a blend is achieved. My favorite seat is front row center which is as close to being on stage as possible. I love the instrumental separation from that perspective.

Since you are asking about large groups, I assume you have a good collection of symphonic recordings, hopefully from all stereophonic eras, 1960 to the present. Is your system resolving enough to parse out the engineering of each recording? You should be able to hear how close the mikes are to the group by hall reverberations and instrumental separation, and whether there was spot mikeing and mixing board shenanigans. Early stereo often was not natural. Today anything goes.

One of the most revealing recordings I have recently encountered is the SACD of the Cleveland Orchestra playing Schnittke Piano Concerto. It is a live performance with the mikes directly over the group. The separation is uncanny. Hopefully you are not afraid of contemporary music. The piece is a blast!

If you cannot hear these differences, then address your room and system. Don’t forget to do ALL the TWEAKS>

I’ve had the same problem.

Amplifier and preamplifier quality and compatibility solved it, though all the other necessary ducks were in a row first, quality FM tuner, speaker placement, speaker isolation, cables, etc.

Great question. I always just assumed this was a given… and a problem that speakers had difficulty dealing with. Only a few sounds… easy… lots of sounds at the same time… difficult. Assuming three individual drivers trying to reproduce the whole audio spectrum. Ideally you would use a thousand speakers with different diameters.. but crossovers would completely destroy the sound.

So, I figured this is a problem that is addressed by better speaker technology allowing faster reaction and recovery to inputs… ok, a grossly oversimplified characterization, but at least gets my point across.

Room acoustics are key for ALL music, maybe even more important for simple music. Try listening to a solo piano in a reflective room, like cats fighting. Do you think a Norah Jones recording would sound better than the 1812 Overture (Lone Ranger theme) in a bad room? No.

So, you get the room right. There is STILL a difference between simple and complex music in a good room that is a problem.

I completely agree that the speakers have to be matched to the room to resolve the problem of complex music presentation. I agree with many of the work arounds presented like the big full range speakers @jayctoy uses, I also agree that quality electronics are important as the speakers can’t produce a signal they don’t get and it will sound mushed coming out. When I am listening to complex music I can send the stereo signal to my Sony Signature DAC which remasters the signal in DSD. My processor then upmixes the signal for my 9.2.7 speakers. I just listened to Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto streaming on Stingray Music through Plex tonight. Not a full scale orchestra but not a quartet either. It lifted me right into the hall they were playing in.

Now, I sometimes will set my X-Box Series S to output in other formats. The other night it was Michael Buble with a HUGE big band recorded in Vegas streamed via Qwest TV on Plex. I set the X-Box to stream it in DTS 7.1 then upmixed it in my processor to 9.2.2. Fan f----tastic. The audience applause envelop you like you are there. The DTS renderer in the X-Box and the DTS-Neo-X upmixer in my Marantz processor layout notes and instruments in a way I have never heard in two channel with both dynamics and precision. For my taste in a complex music presentation wide channels are key, much more so than height channels.

You get the idea. This is the youtube version of that video:

I wondered about this issue as well. No actual name that I have read.

If you consider that in symphonic music live you hear each instrument  however in a two channel stereo you hear only on instrument ,the driver, it seem obvious that

the two can not compete.

Mapman you are right recording is also a big part..And a system that is well synergize with a capable speakers as well.

I experienced this same problem with complex music.  While all components play at least a minor role, I found that the amplifier played the largest role in resolving this problem.

Anuvia I agree the room is a big part. When I play complex music , I use my KLH model 9, my Andra, or the Tekton Ps 12 Speakers. I get good results this way. I think Erik Alexander has explanations on your thread. On my systems my Tekton ps 12 and Impact Monitors both does well on classical.

I agree with @erik_squires that it's usually the room acoustics that are the bottleneck. One way of thinking about that is that a good set of headphones usually doesn't have the issue to anything like the same degree. The main difference is that headphones pipe sound directly into the ear, without its being influenced by the room.

One reason is when there is less for one to focus on, it is easier to take it all in. 

I've been struck with similar observations while listening @ahuvia . And I think I agree that small combinations of instruments often seem easier to present nicely. I also agree that this may be why one often hears sparse arrangements at audio shows and environments designed to show off hi-fi equipment. But what if the space provided by fewer instruments simply allows easier brain processing that gives the impression of enhanced fidelity? Or allows subtler details to stand out (a breath here, a brief string buzz there) simply because they're not masked by other noises, giving an impression of greater detail and clarity? I have no idea if explanations like these are actually true, but I mention it because I'm pretty sure the assumptions you've made to explain this (potential) phenomenon aren't right. 

I mean, your speakers aren't fighting to create the sound of the instruments that were playing, right? They're delivering information stored in the recording of the instruments that were playing -- a very different thing. You're worrying that the speakers are attempting to deliver too much information while being inadequate for the task, but in fact the microphones that recorded the instruments themselves have already squashed the entirety of those data into something different, haven't they? Your speakers have only to correctly deliver that information. Your whole system knows nothing of 15 instruments, it only knows up, down, right, left... Or, you know, zeros and ones. 

But for the original question I hope someone with much more knowledge than I can weigh in on why less info. in a recording seems easier to make sound good? 

The relative scale of music recordings is a very good topic and something that does not get the attention it merits in discussions about good sound at home

It’s true the room is the biggest difference maker in the end especially for recordings of large scale ensembles where you essentially stuff a sound meant for a concert hall into a tiny room at home. For the most part it’s all a matter of relative scale. The good news for all in regards to cost: in a small room, less is often more.

@viridian

The engineers mixing in atmos agree that two channels is very limiting and the atmos "palette" let’s them place the musical objects much more realistically.

Yes, there are bad and good atmos mixes, just like everything else. I find the atmos renderer in the X-Box works well for music and movies mixed in 2, 5, or 7 channel. The Auro-3D, The Audyssey DSX, and DTS-Neo X (not dts-x) all work well for complex music as well as very dynamic music. If you want a GREAT Atmos mix get the Kraftwek 3D blueray or the new Harry Styles atmos mix you can stream.

@asctim

And hugely important, at least for me, is anything you can do to improve the apparent width and clarity of the stereo soundstage.

This is why I posted that article re: Tomlinson Holman. His research shows that wide channels are more important than height channels. They need to be at 60 degree angles and then WOW, soundstage that is just amazing.

You mention Carver, I bought the Sunfire Theater Grand 3 in 2002 which had side axis (wide) channels that were not just an extension of the left and right but using a matrixed wide channel to fill in the gap between the front and side surrounds. It worked great.

I’ve heard some weird stuff on Atmos recordings - like a whole string section of instruments all globbed together coming from one distinct location. I’m guessing that was the track they had to work with - a mono strings track and they had to put it somewhere in the sound field. So that part of the recording lacked clarity and separation but it was nicely separated from other things in the recording. Maybe there was some artistic intent there? I’ve heard that with some vocal harmonizing too. It's like there's a pocket AM radio playing along with the other instruments. 

A lot of good responses already. I agree with getting closer to the speakers or using more directional speakers and/or room treatments, and using active crossovers with steep slopes and more drivers, or adding more speakers and listening to multi-channel music such as Atmos as all good ways to help clarify complex music and provide better separation. A very smooth broadband frequency response at the listening position is also very important. And hugely important, at least for me, is anything you can do to improve the apparent width and clarity of the stereo soundstage. Having different sounds come from very distinctly different apparent directions helps abundantly. That’s where the multi-channel Atmos recordings can really help if done well. Crosstalk elimination methods really help for 2 channel recordings. A divider wall between the speakers is a fantastic improvement in my opinion compared to any 2 channel setup with both speakers playing into both ears at the same time. Polk and Carver came up with analog methods of electronically reducing crosstalk. They work to varying degrees. I’ve tried both. A simple setup I’ve been experimenting with for a few months now that I like much better uses 3 speakers in a close array - about 1 foot apart center to center. It requires matrixing the signal into L-R, L+R, and R-L, which is the kind of stuff Hafler was playing with a long time ago. The interesting thing about putting this array of speakers close together and in front of you is that it provides some pretty effective crosstalk elimination without sounding at all processed, and produces an excellent sound stage which is very good at separating out complex music. I find myself no longer seeking out simpler recordings because I need some relief. The simple stuff sounds great as usual but the complex stuff is not falling apart either, so I’ve been focusing on it, practically looking for something that will overwhelm the setup or make me pine to go back to a traditional 2 speaker setup. At this point I don’t see it happening. The good news is I can run this setup with a standard 2 channel system. I just have to matrix the signal and run 2 of the speakers in parallel, with one out of phase of the other. So, the amp will need to be up to the task of running a lower impedance in one channel than the other. One channel runs the center speaker, the other channel runs the two side speakers. So you need an extra speaker and the matrixer. I use my computer to matrix the signals.

@ahuvia 

I can't figure out how to reply to a specific post. But thanks all for your input.

I just copy and paste what I am replying to and link the member who posted

I can't figure out how to reply to a specific post. But thanks all for your input.

resolving source + muddy amp = audio that is less detailed

resolving source + transparent amp = audio that sounds realistic

resolving source + transparent amp + resolving transducer (s)= audio nirvana

In terms of importance, it goes like this:

1) Transducer(s) (headphones or speakers)

2) Amplifier (solid-state or tube)

3) Source component (DAC, CD player, record player etc.)

Because the headphones or speakers is the final point of contact beween you the total sum of your system, how resolving they are will greatly influence what you hear.

A bad amplifier (that is not audibly transparent or a wire-with-gain, in other words colored-sounding), will limit the full potential of your source component(s) and headphones/speakers.

You could have an incredibly detailed DAC, CD player etc. that provides the true analog-sound (like real life) sound of digital, or even top-notch vinyl. But if the sum of all parts are not aligned, it will be like looking at a beautfiul sight through a foggy window (in terms of what your ears are able to discern and appreciate).

Another workaround is object based audio and atmos music. I have a similar setup (9.2.7) and can confirm the experience they describe in this video:

Another work around for this problem of complex music compression is using active speakers where the crossover design has some advantages in controlling the signal making it far less prone to losses and distortion:

@ahuvia 

You are correct, go to an audio show and the demos are primarily simple acoustic music.

When you try to jam complex music into just two speakers you get compression. Then people run to get bigger speakers with more dynamic range. That is a workaround, fine. My solution has been to add more speakers in addition to more dynamic range. If you are familiar with Tomlinson Holman (THX) you might like this article:

I agree with erik, the room can be a major contributor to incoherence in a system.  The best electronics can only take you so far if your room is the limiting factor.

@ahuvia  what are the dimensions of your room and what equipment are you using?  Have you treated any of the room acoustically?

Thanks. I'll try the listening experiment.

I have noticed that, regardless of the system, simple music (i.e. music with only a few sounds at the same time, such as a solo instrument) sounds way better than what I’ll call here "complex music", meaning music like symphony that has a lot of instruments all playing different sounds at the same time. I’m assuming that this is an inherent problem for audio equipment. In a live symphony,

The room has a much more difficult time with this than electronics. Excess early reflections and too long a reverberant field all contribute to this effect, along with harshness or compression at louder levels.

Try listening to your speakers 2’ away from them and see if this problem goes away. This will tell you if it’s your speakers or the room.

A counterpoint to this is that speakers with more controlled dispersions (ESLs, horns, line arrays,etc.) outperform wide dispersion speakers in excessively lively environments.