WHY are high-efficiency speakers are better at conveying emotion of music vs. audiophile vocabulary?

[microstrip]

Ha. Like the thinking Peter. Here is my 2 penneth for what it’s worth:

> Whilst the figures in terms of the medium itself (digital) purport to capture a potentially larger dynamic range, often the recordings are subject to the vagaries of compressors and limiters that restrict this. That said (and I don’t know why) the most dynamic sounding systems to my ears both in terms of macro and micro dynamics and also the speed of these changes has always occurred via the analogue medium. R2R tape being particularly savagely dynamic but similarly my TTs have been the same.

Some people are buying digitally recorded LPs and tapes and finding they sound great, with fantastic dynamics. I would love to listen to some DXD digital recordings carried on the output of the RIAA stages of our members best analog systems.

> On another note, the very high efficiency speakers / horns we discuss herein have the ability to act as microscopes into the source. More often than not I have preferred the timbre, flow and musical communication of analogue via SET/horn much more so than the digital. I got rid of digital in my system as it sounds too artificial through my SET/Horn so regardless of dynamic ability I couldn’t listen and enjoy anyway lol.[/QUOTE]

You are just addressing your preferences, as most of us do. If all digital sounds artificial thorough your system it is system property, not an intrinsic property of digital. FIY, the Alsyvox planar speakers people are so enthusiastic were demoed with digital. And some people considered that it was the best planar sound reproduction they have listened - for example, see

. - comments around minute 10.

 

[microstrip]

I was wondering why I don't read much about SET/Horn combinations with digital sources. There must be some, but I usually see them with analog. Al M. does have tube electronics with fairly high efficiency speakers and a digital source, and it sounds great.

Because you mostly read WBF, that is currently centered on top vinyl ...

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Francisco - in those individuals that are

I was wondering why I don't read much about SET/Horn combinations with digital sources. There must be some, but I usually see them with analog. Al M. does have tube electronics with fairly high efficiency speakers and a digital source, and it sounds great.

I don’t wish to start a digital vs analogue war today but

Some people are buying digitally recorded LPs and tapes and finding they sound great, with fantastic dynamics. I would love to listen to some DXD digital recordings carried on the output of the RIAA stages of our members best analog systems.

> On another note, the very high efficiency speakers / horns we discuss herein have the ability to act as microscopes into the source. More often than not I have preferred the timbre, flow and musical communication of analogue via SET/horn much more so than the digital. I got rid of digital in my system as it sounds too artificial through my SET/Horn so regardless of dynamic ability I couldn’t listen and enjoy anyway lol.

You are just addressing your preferences, as most of us do. If all digital sounds artificial thorough your system it is system property, not an intrinsic property of digital. FIY, the Alsyvox planar speakers people are so enthusiastic were demoed with digital. And some people considered that it was the best planar sound reproduction they have listened - for example, see

. - comments around minute 10.[/QUOTE]

Hey Francisco,

I haven’t done much in the way of digital compares after I ditched the big cones / ss direction. So my view is limited in my own system. I have heard digital elsewhere with horns though. Don’t wish to start a digital vs analogue though

 

[PeterA]

Because you mostly read WBF, that is currently centered on top vinyl ...

You can have that opinion. Actually I mostly post on WBF. I spend roughly equal time READING four different audio websites. Audio Nirvana and Vinyl Asylum are also pretty focused on vinyl. I don't know what you mean by "top vinyl".

 

[microstrip]

(...) Don’t wish to start a digital vs analogue though

Neither do I, let us try to close the Pandora box ...

 

[microstrip]

You can have that opinion. Actually I mostly post on WBF. I spend roughly equal time READING four different audio websites. Audio Nirvana and Vinyl Asylum are also pretty focused on vinyl. I don't know what you mean by "top vinyl".

It was just my point - your main interest is vinyl, you mostly get information from vinyl users ...

By top, I meant very high performance and surely somewhat expensive vinyl playing systems.

 

[bonzo75]

I was wondering why I don't read much about SET/Horn combinations with digital sources. There must be some, but I usually see them with analog. Al M. does have tube electronics with fairly high efficiency speakers and a digital source, and it sounds great.

There are a lot of SET horn systems with digital. My previous impressions of Tune Audio Anima, Trios, Universums, etc were all with digital. Vinyl goodness flows more through SET horns than it does through non-SET horns. Cones like Magico and Wilson keep their soundstage and color characteristic and different recordings are less enjoyable, though reissues sound great if you like the sound of the speaker driven by your choice of electronics.

Some horns do have a color and exhibit the same characteristic. Some change drastically. So if you, for example, preferred the Magicos over the Wilsons with digital, you will likely have the same preference with analog, though you might prefer the analog over the digital. However, with horns, if you have a preference order with digital, it could change drastically with analog. I find the Anima and Universum equal with digital, though different, but prefer the latter with analog. The SET path when kept simple shows a large change in recordings as long as the horn drivers allow it. Like in Tang's system, or the General's.

My Lampi sounds great with horns (the UK Lampi distro has been a horns guy for over two decades) but the gain needs to be changed to accomodate, otherwise it will drive the speakers hard and they will sound bright, since mine was not designed for horns. Astrotoy, who owns 15000 of the original Decca and EMI classicals, rips them (he got guidance from the Keith of reference recordings on the ripping) and plays them back through the Lampi GG on his horns.

 

[morricab]

You are admitting that more efficient speakers have wider dynamics, something I was just saying it is not proved - all arguments I have read in this thread are old dogmas or biased views of users/lovers.

And no, I do not know think anything solid concerning emotion in sound reproduction - except that its an extremely subjective aspect, that would need a lot of resources to be properly studied. Usually audio scholars do not debate emotion per se, but enjoyment, probably considering that emotion is part of enjoyment.

All planar speakers are essentially non-linear - the electrical or magnetic field where the diaphragm moves is not uniform. There is some advantage of having higher area at some frequencies, as it improves the "coupling" to air. But for some other frequencies it is a nuisance - technically the best existing planar speaker, within its limits of bandwidth and dynamics, is the Quad ESL 63, that behaves live a point-like planar.

All you have to do is look at the pro driver market to know that it is proved. They use almost exclusively high sensitivity drivers because it allows them to play much louder before onset of compression, which has the side effect of allowing a much greater dynamic range. It is no wonder they make heavy use of compression drivers with horns and large, light stiff cones with huge magnets. That ability to play very loud without compression translates into huge dynamic swing capabilities at lower volumes. It is proven enough I think.

Emotion from music may be complicated but that doesn't prevent us from having some educated guesses about what the SAME music would do on two different systems where one has wide dynamics and the other relatively limited dynamics. My educated guess is that dynamic swings and microdynamic shifts are vital to delivering an emotional content in music. We have all experienced the case where our favorite music on one system moves us and on another sounds boring. If people took the time to dissect why they felt that way I am sure we could zero in on some causes (note I did not say cause) for this feeling. It is reproducible as well. I have also experienced this with live playing and there it comes down often to the expression of the performer. You can play a given piece either deathly boring or with expressiveness that largely comes down to dynamic and harmonic contrast. My ex demonstrated this to me many times on the violin. She could play a piece technically correctly a number of ways and always the more emotionally engaging was the one with more contrast.

As to planars, it depends. A true ribbon is in a pretty uniform field over its whole excursion range and a push/pull planar will also not see a very large variation over its excursion range. Stats are also push/pull and this will make them less non-linear. The bigger problem is with panels that are fixed on all sides, as they move outward (or backward) they become mechanically increasingly non-linear as the reach their excursion limits. What they don't really suffer from is thermal compression. This is rather obvious for an electrostat, which doesn't even have any current running through the driver...stators are usually just wires or mesh screen (you might get a transformer saturation though). For a large planar magnetic though you have a flat "voice coil" that has a huge surface area and is openly exposed to moving air. This means they don't really heat up in the same way a tight voice coil in a narrow gap with little air flow will behave. They will begin excursion compression (that non-linearity) long before they get warm enough to thermally compress.

Why would behaving like a point source be inherently better? My experience is that a line source actually works better in real rooms for the most part. Otherwise, the Quad also has the disadvantage of having a small radiating area comparatively and will therefore be more dynamically limited. For Stats and planars size is a big advantage for peak dynamic capability.

 

[morricab]

I was wondering why I don't read much about SET/Horn combinations with digital sources. There must be some, but I usually see them with analog. Al M. does have tube electronics with fairly high efficiency speakers and a digital source, and it sounds great.

I use both and both sound fine...

Horns are a microscope though and a lot of digital won't do...

 

[microstrip]

All you have to do is look at the pro driver market to know that it is proved. They use almost exclusively high sensitivity drivers because it allows them to play much louder before onset of compression, which has the side effect of allowing a much greater dynamic range. It is no wonder they make heavy use of compression drivers with horns and large, light stiff cones with huge magnets. That ability to play very loud without compression translates into huge dynamic swing capabilities at lower volumes. It is proven enough I think.

Dynamic range is not maximum loudness. Just because it must play at 130dB does not mean it is more linear at 90 dB. Surely some professional drivers are very linear because they are excellently designed - and also very expensive. Not just because they are efficient.

Emotion from music may be complicated but that doesn't prevent us from having some educated guesses about what the SAME music would do on two different systems where one has wide dynamics and the other relatively limited dynamics. My educated guess is that dynamic swings and microdynamic shifts are vital to delivering an emotional content in music. We have all experienced the case where our favorite music on one system moves us and on another sounds boring. If people took the time to dissect why they felt that way I am sure we could zero in on some causes (note I did not say cause) for this feeling. It is reproducible as well. I have also experienced this with live playing and there it comes down often to the expression of the performer. You can play a given piece either deathly boring or with expressiveness that largely comes down to dynamic and harmonic contrast. My ex demonstrated this to me many times on the violin. She could play a piece technically correctly a number of ways and always the more emotionally engaging was the one with more contrast.

As I have often said, although interesting to understand the why's of our opinions, own emotions are too private and circumstantial to be of any value in these debates.

As to planars, it depends. A true ribbon is in a pretty uniform field over its whole excursion range and a push/pull planar will also not see a very large variation over its excursion range. Stats are also push/pull and this will make them less non-linear. The bigger problem is with panels that are fixed on all sides, as they move outward (or backward) they become mechanically increasingly non-linear as the reach their excursion limits. What they don't really suffer from is thermal compression. This is rather obvious for an electrostat, which doesn't even have any current running through the driver...stators are usually just wires or mesh screen (you might get a transformer saturation though). For a large planar magnetic though you have a flat "voice coil" that has a huge surface area and is openly exposed to moving air. This means they don't really heat up in the same way a tight voice coil in a narrow gap with little air flow will behave. They will begin excursion compression (that non-linearity) long before they get warm enough to thermally compress.

Why would behaving like a point source be inherently better? My experience is that a line source actually works better in real rooms for the most part. Otherwise, the Quad also has the disadvantage of having a small radiating area comparatively and will therefore be more dynamically limited. For Stats and planars size is a big advantage for peak dynamic capability.

Sorry it is not uniform, it is what matters. Its relative deviation is higher than deviation of resistance of coils under typical audiophile conditions. We agree on the dynamics, for us point-like source versus line-source is a question of preference. My experience is that ESL63 can image much better than all line sources I have owned or listened - btw the XLF also joins it in this aspect. As always IMHO, YMMV.

 

[morricab]

Dynamic range is not maximum loudness. Just because it must play at 130dB does not mean it is more linear at 90 dB. Surely some professional drivers are very linear because they are excellently designed - and also very expensive. Not just because they are efficient.



As I have often said, although interesting to understand the why's of our opinions, own emotions are too private and circumstantial to be of any value in these debates.



Sorry it is not uniform, it is what matters. Its relative deviation is higher than deviation of resistance of coils under typical audiophile conditions. We agree on the dynamics, for us point-like source versus line-source is a question of preference. My experience is that ESL63 can image much better than all line sources I have owned or listened - btw the XLF also joins it in this aspect. As always IMHO, YMMV.

All I can say to your first point that "dynamic range is not maximum loudness" is DUH! I never said anything of the sort and I knew you would try to cherry pick out that irrelevant point. A speaker that can play loud without compression will have a wider dynamic range. Its simply physics. It might have other flaws that make it unacceptable for whatever purpose you want it for but that doesn't impact the dynamic range.

Price and sensitivity are not necessarily correlated there are both good inexpensive pro drivers and good expensive ones...just like conventional drivers. The sensitivity (please stop using efficiency...this is not the correct term) is part of the design principle and to get there requires large, powerful magnets, and low moving mass...again its physics.

IMO, the Quad 63 is not the best imaging planar speaker, point source or no. I have heard it and later iterations that use the point source design and these are some of the worst sounding planars I have heard. If you want to hear an amazing imaging stat then get a pair of STAX ELS-F81s or F83s...or Acoustat Spectra 2200s. Those image incredibly well...better than just about anything else I have heard. Big Soundlabs don't image as well because of how they are designed.

 

[microstrip]

All I can say to your first point that "dynamic range is not maximum loudness" is DUH! I never said anything of the sort and I knew you would try to cherry pick out that irrelevant point. A speaker that can play loud without compression will have a wider dynamic range. Its simply physics. It might have other flaws that make it unacceptable for whatever purpose you want it for but that doesn't impact the dynamic range.

Price and sensitivity are not necessarily correlated there are both good inexpensive pro drivers and good expensive ones...just like conventional drivers. The sensitivity (please stop using efficiency...this is not the correct term) is part of the design principle and to get there requires large, powerful magnets, and low moving mass...again its physics.

IMO, the Quad 63 is not the best imaging planar speaker, point source or no. I have heard it and later iterations that use the point source design and these are some of the worst sounding planars I have heard. If you want to hear an amazing imaging stat then get a pair of STAX ELS-F81s or F83s...or Acoustat Spectra 2200s. Those image incredibly well...better than just about anything else I have heard. Big Soundlabs don't image as well because of how they are designed.

The point is relevant sorry. Dynamic range is the ratio between the loudest and the less loud a speaker can play - a speaker can play very loud but if is not capable of playing adequately at low volumes sees its dynamic range is reduced. So it becomes relevant. Surely playing adequately is subjective.

I know you love wording and condescendence, but my points are technical and physical, addressed with simple brief words, not court type discourse. And I will go on using technical terms as used by many experts and people I respect for their notable contributions to loudspeaker field, not according to your commands.

Thanks for your opinion on electrostatics . I am now out of thread. Have a nice weekend.

 

[Duke LeJeune]

Just because it must play at 130dB does not mean it is more linear at 90 dB.

Ime in practice it does mean that.

I am not aware of any 130 dB capable drivers that are less linear at 90 dB (1/10,000 as much power, 1/10,000th as much heat).

Are you?

I do not know think anything solid concerning emotion in sound reproduction - except that its an extremely subjective aspect, that would need a lot of resources to be properly studied.

It seems you don't believe there is a significant correlation between dynamic contrast and the conveyance of emotion. Am I understanding you correctly?

If so...
Let me offer a VISUAL example of DYNAMIC CONTRAST and YOU can tell ME whether or not it CONVEYS EMOTION.

By the way, I don't really mean to shout at you - I'm just trying to illustrate the correlation between dynamic contrast and emotion.

My point being, of course, that if dynamic contrast matters when it comes to conveying emotion, then it makes sense to minimize effects which reduce dynamic contrast.

On a related note, I had an interesting written conversation with Floyd Toole one time about short-time-constant thermal effects ("thermal modulation"). He said this was an issue that has not been adequately studied, and went on to mention measuring a three-way speaker whose midrange driver exhibited 7 dB of short-term compression on what should have been 20 dB peaks. I assume this was a rather extreme example, but he cited it as evidence that thermal modulation is a real and under-appreciated phenomenon.

 

[Duke LeJeune]

The sensitivity (please stop using efficiency...this is not the correct term)...

The convention I follow is, to use the term "efficiency" in referring to SPL at one meter for a one-watt input into the nominal impedance. Imo this is useful when talking about thermal compression, which is a function of heat (watts) and thermal capacities and curves.

I use the term "sensitivity" when referring to SPL at one meter for a 2.83 volt input, but volts do not translate directly into thermal effects - we have to convert to watts first, and the speaker's impedance come into play.

2.83 volts into my 16-ohm speaker is only 1/2 watt.

That same 2.83 volts into B&C's 1-ohm woofer is 8 watts.

I'm sure you know all of this - I'm just explaining my rationale for using the term "efficiency" in the context of thermal effects. (Actually the most precise use of the term would be as a percentage, but that percentage has to then be translated into decibels at one meter before it is easily relatable.)

 

[Loheswaran]

Unfo

Unfortunately, your analogy doesn’t really apply to audio. See the excellent post just above that explains the issues with low sensitivity drivers and thermal compression. Pouring more power on the situation doesn’t correct the fundamental issue...the driver will just heat more and therefore compress more. Eventually it just stops getting louder. High sensitivity drivers have the same physics but it is offset by 10db or so and this makes a big difference with 2 things. 1) it allows at normal listening levels a less compressed sound and lower distortion from the speakers, particularly dynamically. 2) Better sounding amps can be used.

The point of my analogy is that in simplistic terms people have this belief that low sensitivity means a lack of dynamics or delicacy.
Dennis Morecroft of DNM in a paper made a key point when talking about speaker cables that the coupling (by cable) is essentially how an amp drives/controls a load. In other words matching the amplifier to the speaker. In actives' this is taken to a more logical conclusion.
hence my point a heavy load (racket) of itself is not a barrier to control (delicacy) or dynamics (power) but depends on the arm (amp) that wields it. If you don't see my analogy fair enough, but bear in mind an analogy is not meant to be identical and is merely something you may find instructive. When I studied electronics I was told to deal with it as one would water flow and plumbing.
A more powerful amp is not just about loudness - it's about the dynamic swings - quiet/loud moments. Bear in mind that those powerful amps tend to be driving multiple drivers speakers such as say large Wilsons or Magicos - Sensitive speakers do tend to be two ways, or say single driver horns.

 

[Al M.]

You are just addressing your preferences, as most of us do. If all digital sounds artificial thorough your system it is system property, not an intrinsic property of digital. FIY, the Alsyvox planar speakers people are so enthusiastic were demoed with digital. And some people considered that it was the best planar sound reproduction they have listened - for example, see

. - comments around minute 10.

Horrible sound over my headphones on the computer. But I guess you shouldn't trust videos to give you an idea about sound quality

 

[morricab]

Horrible sound over my headphones on the computer. But I guess you shouldn't trust videos to give you an idea about sound quality

They sounded really good "in the flesh".

 

[GaryProtein]

Anyone understand WHY -on average - the high efficiency models grab the emotions, while so many lower-efficiency models sound like a check list of the audiophile vocabulary?

Obviously this is a subjective hobby. If you don't find this is the case, please stay out of the thread.

I wasn't aware of those rules... audiophiles seem to be so sensitive if you don't share their tastes and preferences...

On one hand you say audiophiles are sensitive if you don't share their tastes and on the other hand you tell people who may disagree to stay out of the thread.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

[caesar]

On one hand you say audiophiles are sensitive if you don't share their tastes and on the other hand you tell people who may disagree to stay out of the thread.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

Not sure I follow your logic. Many audiophiles are super sensitive . Take the Magico fans. They cheer when their guys from the absolute sound bash every brand as colored and defective , while Magico sounds "real" in these audio journalists' imagination.

Yet when you bring up that the (rejected by the free market and discontinued) Magico q series driven by soulution or consoulation and Berkeley reference dac , "the best dac extant " according to the the absolute sound guys, is so analytical it needs to come with a suicide hotline number so that one doesn't hang himself from the chandelier after 30 seconds of listening, those same folks get upset...



The reality is that the reviewer / magazine marketing machine is very strong, and most of the well-marketed , and thus popular brands are very hard to drive. Wilson , for example , excepting Alexandria, sounds like syrupy crap with most tube amps. And , like Magico , wilson is unlistenable with vast majority of solid state... and guys bought into these popular , well-marketed brands get their feelings hurt when you bring it up ...



The point of this thread is to discuss the interesting topics in hobby, not to have stupid arguments or get guys feelings hurt.

So my suggestion to those who don't accept my premise is to just stay out!!! ... and that also includes the measurement guys also, who think high efficiency gear and set amps is all colored drek, and Magico/ Wilson fans who paid those big bucks are idiot mother fuyers.



And then, of course, many audiophiles just like to argue for the sake of arguing...



Anyways, how are you contributing to the discussion of the topic at hand? If you want to argue, please start your own thread. And please stay out - if you don't have anything constructive to contribute here.
Cheers!

 

[analogsa]

the Alsyvox planar speakers people are so enthusiastic were demoed with digital.

What is perhaps more surprising, they also seem enthusiastic demoing using class D amps...