ack's system - end of round 1

[PeterA]

I think there is a very interesting question imbeded here in this thread as to what should a speaker be: laid back (recessed) or forward. It seems both Ack and Al M. are saying their systems are somewhat forward and that the Q3 is recessed. From what I see from Q3s measurements it is not recessed in the conventional sense where there is a dip in the presence region (a trick that was used by a lot of British speakers like B&W to make music less "in your face"). A dip in the presence region will give the perception of more depth and for classical music a more "you are there" distant perspective of sitting mid-hall. Since the Q3 doesn't have this dip really then we are talking about a different effect that is causing the perception of the sound being nearer or farther from the listener.

I will first point out something that should be obvious: If the majority of your recordings sound up front and forward or sound too distant then there is a flaw in your system. Your system should sound forward and present when the recording is done this way (this means a lot of pop/rock, some Jazz and some small ensemble classical can all be recorded and mixed "up close") and it should sound more distant and spacious with more naturally mic'd and mixed recordings. Music selection of course may impact the overall impression here but in a trial with a wide range of recording styles you should not see a trend other than what is on the recordings.

I have found that things can measure nearly perfectly and still sound forward or distant because of some of these traits: 1) Forward and somewhat flat sound comes from excessive HF energy, particularly high order harmonic distortion. High order harmonic distortion will give an "edge" to the sound (so it will also give perception of sharp transients) and will alter the perception of loudness at those frequencies, which in turn impacts the perception of depth. One way we gauge depth is the relationship between high frequencies and lower ones because this changes with distance and we interpret the sound as coming from somewhere far away if there is a significant HF content. A violin, for example, will sound quite lit up and perhaps rough up close but the same thing will sound sweet and somewhat mellow at 10 meters away. Another possbility is that the tweeter itself creates artifacts that lead to the same perception issues. If you are getting consistently forward sound from your system either your speaker tonal balance is really tilted upwards or have a look at your electronics chain because something is not as clean as you think. When my friend had his Octave monos (with SuperBB) on Thiel CS3.7s there was a consistent edge (brightness/glassiness) and forward sound on nearly all recordings and particuarly when the amps were pushed a bit. He changed the amps and it was gone and the Thiels gave great soundstage and 3d images...to be fair, the Thiels are very linear (perhaps too much in normal rooms) and can come across as "bright" but this was clearly exaccerbated by the amps.

2) If you are getting a somewhat recessed sound and yet the speaker measures flat then it is because of some reticence in the highs due either to the speakers and/or the electronics. This goes back to something that HP noticed over the years, a speaker can measure flat to 20Khz and still sound somewhat soft and distant. I have noticed this as well and it could be a dynamic reticence on the tweeter or perhaps that tweeter is very lacking in atrifice (see above for exaggerations of highs). However, we are talking about an issue where you are always perceiving sound at a distance and this would indicate a flaw. Electronics may also have some restriction in delivering HF with the same relative energy to the rest of the range (i.e. somewhat dark sounding). A dark sounding piece of gear will rarely sound very forward even with close mic'd "in yer face" recordings. This reticenence in the highs will then give a more distant perspective regardless of the recording.

Note: I am not talking about speakers or electronics with obvious defects that can cause these effects (bumps and dips in the speaker FR, for example).

IMO, these are both flaws as the music should "breathe" depending on the recoridng or even within some really good ones.

Excellent post, morricab. I have had a fascinating discussion over the last couple of weeks with my Boston audio buddies about the terms "recessed" and "relaxed". I have been considering this topic ever since my Q3s were described as having a "recessed midrange". I simply don't hear it and am appreciative of your description about the speaker's measurements and potential other causes. I fully agree that if a system always sounds forward, or has an "up front" presentation, there is an issue somewhere, particularly for a system like Ack's which attempts to be extremely transparent to the recording. Such a universal observation indicates something is amiss because different recordings have different listening perspectives and mic positions. But then, it also depends on what kind of presentation the owner prefers as so much of this is subjective and about individual priorities and preferences.

 

[ack]

We didn't discuss the amps shutting down. These MIT ACC series are clearly not my favorite. Do not take what I said out of context; the context is THESE series of expensive MIT cables with the 2C3D circuit, and probably all others like it. By contrast, you said you actually liked that 500/MIT/M3 combo quite a bit, so I see a lot of flip-flopping. Therefore, I think we do hear quite differently. And notice, I have not yet said that the Magico M3s are actually a good speaker, nor did the dealer say that either.

 

[Al M.]

Thanks for your thought morricab. I feel that the crossover can also be voiced to give a certain type of presentation, as can upstream electronics (see your comment about amps). So hard to say for sure here. As yet another example, I was talking to the local Magico dealer yesterday about the Spectral 500/M3 issues that I have documented numerous times herein, and he confirms it's the speaker CABLES for the euphonic midrange that I am hearing, despite their Off setting on the boxes during the demos. In other words, he confirms that there is still a certain 2C3D effect with them, despite having turned that switch Off. Therefore, it takes a lot of experimentation to figure out what's really going on. At least now I can confirm yet again that I am not a fan of the super expensive MIT cables, as they appear to have taken the wrong turn somewhere.

So it's the speaker cables, as I had suspected, after Peter mentioned articulation box settings:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...eat-ol-Quad-57&p=502989&viewfull=1#post502989

 

[ack]

So it's the speaker cables, as I had suspected

... or is it? For fun, read up the positive feedback review here https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/hardware-reviews/music-interface-technologies-cables/, and notice what I essentially complain about is billed as good attributes

 

[PeterA]

We didn't discuss the amps shutting down. These MIT ACC series are clearly not my favorite. Do not take what I said out of context; the context is THESE series of expensive MIT cables with the 2C3D circuit, and probably all others like it. By contrast, you said you actually liked that 500/MIT/M3 combo quite a bit, so I see a lot of flip-flopping. Therefore, I think we do hear quite differently. And notice, I have not yet said that the Magico M3s are actually a good speaker, nor did the dealer say that either.

Yes indeed, I thought the M3s sounded great at Goodwins, just like a lot of other people who have heard them there. I only heard them once, very briefly, with only two recordings. It is an initial impression that was very positive. I spoke to one guy who had just heard them in the middle room the same day he visited me to hear my Q3s. I don't know which model of Spectral amp or MIT cables I heard them with. I also mentioned that for part of the audition the Spectral preamp was set to mono which I commented to the dealer about. When he switched it to stereo it sounded much better. I did notice all cable box controls were off or at lowest settings. I never heard the amps shut down. No flip flopping here.

Your comment about the cables being the culprit simply serves as another example of how these cables have effected the sound in many auditions in that room. Nothing more than that, and it seems Goodwins is aware of it too, though you once told me that they often agree with clients' complaints about MIT cables. When I told them that I heard what sounded like a phase issue, they agreed with me. You have heard the M3s many more times than I have, but only on digital, so I believe you did not like the sound. We have different personal preferences which is clear, though perhaps similar goals in the end. That we hear differently is not surprising given our different approaches and priorities in the hobby.

Regarding context, it is clear that we are talking about these specific cables which I have also heard during other demonstrations. I happen to think that other MIT cables with controls have issues too, though I don't know now which models those are. Like Transparent, the model designations are very confusing and there are so many of them out there. It's a rat's nest. I only asked you if Goodwins thinks the same issue occurs in the middle room. I have no idea if the cables are the same, different, or are different with the same technology. If it does not, then we can make other assumptions about what has an effect on the sound.

Again, perhaps it would be interesting for you to either hear the M3 with an analog source or with any source in the middle room. Then you will have more information and be able to better determine what it is about the sound you don't like and why.

 

[Al M.]

Excellent post, morricab. I have had a fascinating discussion over the last couple of weeks with my Boston audio buddies about the terms "recessed" and "relaxed". I have been considering this topic ever since my Q3s were described as having a "recessed midrange". I simply don't hear it and am appreciative of your description about the speaker's measurements and potential other causes. I fully agree that if a system always sounds forward, or has an "up front" presentation, there is an issue somewhere, particularly for a system like Ack's which attempts to be extremely transparent to the recording. Such a universal observation indicates something is amiss because different recordings have different listening perspectives and mic positions. But then, it also depends on what kind of presentation the owner prefers as so much of this is subjective and about individual priorities and preferences.

Or it is simply the listening position. At the same distance as you sit from your Q3, at 9.8 feet ear to tweeter, my system sounds more or less as forward or distant as yours, depending on the recording to be reproduced. For most music I still prefer my usual 9.0 feet distance, which gives me the more upfront perspective that I personally like (even there, recordings with great spatial depth are reproduced as such). Ack also sits quite close to his speakers.

Yes, it was a great post by Brad.

 

[PeterA]

Or it is simply the listening position. At the same distance as you sit from your Q3, at 9.8 feet ear to tweeter, my system sounds more or less as forward or distant as yours, depending on the recording to be reproduced. For most music I still prefer my usual 9.0 feet distance, which gives me the more upfront perspective that I personally like (even there, recordings with great spatial depth are reproduced as such). Ack also sits quite close to his speakers.

Yes, it was a great post by Brad.

I agree that moving around the listening position will affect things, listener perspective being just one. The resulting change in effective toe-in, reflection points, and sometimes, driver cohesion, because the listening seat is now different, also affects how we perceive the sound.

Even though both you and Ack sit fairly close to your speakers, my perception of the spatial information, the sense of presence and depth, and other aspects of the sound of your respective systems, is very different. The systems sound very different from each other, in my opinion.

 

[ack]

Regarding context, it is clear that we are talking about these specific cables which I have also heard during other demonstrations. I happen to think that other MIT cables with controls have issues too, though I don't know now which models those are. Like Transparent, the model designations are very confusing and there are so many of them out there. It's a rat's nest.

I can only tell you I have never been a fan of this 2C3D thing, whether it's a circuit in the cables, or the marketing hoopla between Spectral/MIT/Avalon, being billed as such. The worst of it is finding out that the 'Off' position may still not render the circuit completely off, if that makes any sense. I bought into the Spectra/MIT synergy for technical reasons, and I have to say again, Spectral has specifically told me (and others) which cables they bless (posted a number of times in the past). In other words, with anything outside that realm, it's user-preference territory. At any rate, these ACC series are apparently not neutral, veer off the basic articulation patent, and if this is what this 2C3D circuit kinda sounds like, then to me it's fake. So again, I am surprised you liked that Spectral/MIT/M3 demo so much - that's the flip-flopping part.

 

[PeterA]

I can only tell you I have never been a fan of this 2C3D thing, whether it's a circuit in the cables, or the marketing hoopla between Spectral/MIT/Avalon, being billed as such. The worst of it is finding out that the 'Off' position may still not render the circuit completely off, if that makes any sense. I bought into the Spectra/MIT synergy for technical reasons, and I have to say again, Spectral has specifically told me (and others) which cables they bless (posted a number of times in the past). In other words, with anything outside that realm, it's user-preference territory. At any rate, these ACC series are apparently not neutral, veer off the basic articulation patent, and if this is what this 2C3D circuit kinda sounds like, then to me it's fake. So again, I am surprised you liked that Spectral/MIT/M3 demo so much - that's the flip-flopping part.

I agree with you on the 2C3D thing. Terrible sound effects.

I liked the Spectral/MIT/M3 demo very much. That position and opinion has not changed. Sure, I would like to hear the M3 in my own system or with different components and in a different room to further assess its sound, but I have not yet had the chance to do that. I never liked the MIT cables with those switches - whatever technology. I didn't like it before and I don't like it now. I have heard them in systems that sounded very good. I think my opinions have remained consistent. You think that I am flip-flopping because it seems untenable that I can both like the M3 and dislike the MIT cables. I think I like the M3 DESPITE having heard them through the MIT cables. Now, if you think I liked the MIT cables at some point, and now I don't, then you might have an argument, but my opinion has not changed.

It is just like you once admitting that you liked the sound of my system, despite the fact that I use older technology Transparent cables, which you really dislike. There is no inconsistency there, and there is no flip-flopping. Sorry.

 

[ack]

You think that I am flip-flopping because it seems untenable that I can both like the M3 and dislike the MIT cables. I think I like the M3 DESPITE having heard them through the MIT cables.

Weird

 

[PeterA]

Weird

"Flip-flopping" implies to me a change of mind or opinion. I think my opinion of both the 2C3D MIT cables and of the Magico M3s has remained consistent. Why would you say I am flip-flopping?

Furthermore, how is you liking a system with cables that you don't like any different from me liking a system with cables that I don't like? Where is the inconsistency? I think many people have enjoyed systems that may contain a component that they don't think is very good. How is that weird?

 

[ack]

"Flip-flopping" implies to me a change of mind or opinion. I think my opinion of both the 2C3D MIT cables and of the Magico M3s has remained consistent. Why would you say I am flip-flopping?

Furthermore, how is you liking a system with cables that you don't like any different from me liking a system with cables that I don't like? Where is the inconsistency? I think many people have enjoyed systems that may contain a component that they don't think is very good. How is that weird?

How can one possibly like a system so much as to call it the best sound or something like that, when one component [the cables] offers such a fake sound. You must have liked the cables themselves, as part of this system.

 

[Al M.]

How can one possibly like a system so much as to call it the best sound or something like that, when one component [the cables] offers such a fake sound. You must have liked the cables themselves, as part of this system.

It would seem so, yes, by the normal rules of logic.

 

[morricab]

Thanks for your thought morricab. I feel that the crossover can also be voiced to give a certain type of presentation, as can upstream electronics (see your comment about amps). So hard to say for sure here. As yet another example, I was talking to the local Magico dealer yesterday about the Spectral 500/M3 issues that I have documented numerous times herein, and he confirms it's the speaker CABLES for the euphonic midrange that I am hearing, despite their Off setting on the boxes during the demos. In other words, he confirms that there is still a certain 2C3D effect with them, despite having turned that switch Off. Therefore, it takes a lot of experimentation to figure out what's really going on. At least now I can confirm yet again that I am not a fan of the super expensive MIT cables, as they appear to have taken the wrong turn somewhere.

You realize that the MIT cables that Spectral insists people use, are in fact bandwidth limiting the output of the amplifier because Spectral refuses to put into the amp a network to do just that for the protection of the amp.

 

[morricab]

Excellent post, morricab. I have had a fascinating discussion over the last couple of weeks with my Boston audio buddies about the terms "recessed" and "relaxed". I have been considering this topic ever since my Q3s were described as having a "recessed midrange". I simply don't hear it and am appreciative of your description about the speaker's measurements and potential other causes. I fully agree that if a system always sounds forward, or has an "up front" presentation, there is an issue somewhere, particularly for a system like Ack's which attempts to be extremely transparent to the recording. Such a universal observation indicates something is amiss because different recordings have different listening perspectives and mic positions. But then, it also depends on what kind of presentation the owner prefers as so much of this is subjective and about individual priorities and preferences.

Well, if someone prefers that all recordings sound forward and "present" that is their right but it should be obvious that it is an artifact as recordings vary greatly in this regard.

 

[morricab]

Yes indeed, I thought the M3s sounded great at Goodwins, just like a lot of other people who have heard them there. I only heard them once, very briefly, with only two recordings. It is an initial impression that was very positive. I spoke to one guy who had just heard them in the middle room the same day he visited me to hear my Q3s. I don't know which model of Spectral amp or MIT cables I heard them with. I also mentioned that for part of the audition the Spectral preamp was set to mono which I commented to the dealer about. When he switched it to stereo it sounded much better. I did notice all cable box controls were off or at lowest settings. I never heard the amps shut down. No flip flopping here.

Your comment about the cables being the culprit simply serves as another example of how these cables have effected the sound in many auditions in that room. Nothing more than that, and it seems Goodwins is aware of it too, though you once told me that they often agree with clients' complaints about MIT cables. When I told them that I heard what sounded like a phase issue, they agreed with me. You have heard the M3s many more times than I have, but only on digital, so I believe you did not like the sound. We have different personal preferences which is clear, though perhaps similar goals in the end. That we hear differently is not surprising given our different approaches and priorities in the hobby.

Regarding context, it is clear that we are talking about these specific cables which I have also heard during other demonstrations. I happen to think that other MIT cables with controls have issues too, though I don't know now which models those are. Like Transparent, the model designations are very confusing and there are so many of them out there. It's a rat's nest. I only asked you if Goodwins thinks the same issue occurs in the middle room. I have no idea if the cables are the same, different, or are different with the same technology. If it does not, then we can make other assumptions about what has an effect on the sound.

Again, perhaps it would be interesting for you to either hear the M3 with an analog source or with any source in the middle room. Then you will have more information and be able to better determine what it is about the sound you don't like and why.

The only Magicos I have heard so far that i would like to own are the huge (and hugely expensive) horn Magicos. Those can make a lifelike sound...but the price!!

 

[morricab]

Or it is simply the listening position. At the same distance as you sit from your Q3, at 9.8 feet ear to tweeter, my system sounds more or less as forward or distant as yours, depending on the recording to be reproduced. For most music I still prefer my usual 9.0 feet distance, which gives me the more upfront perspective that I personally like (even there, recordings with great spatial depth are reproduced as such). Ack also sits quite close to his speakers.

Yes, it was a great post by Brad.

I have found that sitting distance is not the main reason for a forward or distant presentation from a system. I have some single driver Fostex speakers that always sound a bit forward regardless if I sit 5 feet away or 15 feet away and it has a lot to do in their case with a peaky lower treble that brings the sound forward somewhat. It is not nearly as bad as the Lowther "shout" but it is still there and brings the sound forward. This is an electro/mechanical effect in this case but I have heard similiar things by changing amps or sources. I did a preamp shootout many years ago (you can read about it in my old reviews on Positive Feedback) where I had a Sphinx Project 4 hybrid preamp that sounded really good with everything EXCEPT the soundstage and images were FLAT. I mean really flat, like I have rarely heard before or since. It was not even a bright sounding preamp per se (in fact it was pretty nice tonally) but that flatness gave a total cognitive dissonance that I couldn't shake. The other excellent preamps all had varying degrees of 3d and depth but not this one. The fully coherent Acoustat Spectra 2200s were one of the best reviewer's tools I could have had...superb resolution and sensitivity to all kinds of weird electronic effects made it easy to review. They were probably the most neutrally balanced speaker I ever owned (+- 2db in room from 200-12Khz then gentle rolloff above that) so tonal variations in gear were easy to hear too. Forward recoridngs breathed into the room and more distant recordings had great depth and space.

I like my Decware HDTs a lot for some music but they are not as universal as the Odeons for the reason of this forwardness bias (also the highs are not as good). It can be lessened to some extent with a good SET as the tendencies are exaccerbated by most amps.


A speaker or system that is not forward sounding will also not sound particularly forward when sitting very close...although it might start sounding less coherent as the drivers likely need some distance to mesh properly (not an issue with single driver or full-range electrostat).

 

[ack]

You realize that the MIT cables that Spectral insists people use, are in fact bandwidth limiting the output of the amplifier because Spectral refuses to put into the amp a network to do just that for the protection of the amp.

Yes of course, and we have explained why this is so, and why the amps are unfiltered designs. What's your point?

 

[microstrip]

You realize that the MIT cables that Spectral insists people use, are in fact bandwidth limiting the output of the amplifier because Spectral refuses to put into the amp a network to do just that for the protection of the amp.

Because they found that putting the ultra sonic network in the end of the cable sounds better.

The association of MIT and Spectral and the technical reasons behind it can not be summarized in a short post - we must address at what period we are referring - the 90's, 2000's or current time?

 

[BMCG]

Because they found that putting the ultra sonic network in the end of the cable sounds better.

The association of MIT and Spectral and the technical reasons behind it can not be summarized in a short post - we must address at what period we are referring - the 90's, 2000's or current time?

Well put micro. It is a design choice that appeals to many....rather like those glowing red tubes of glass appeal to others...