Component Choice : The Audiophile Perspective

[DaveC]

I'm not sure what "big" means in this case, but I would 100 out of 100 times take 4 outstanding (well placed) 12 inch subs as compared to a single 18 inches sub. EVERY time.

Agree on the subs, but I mean main speakers... you need a lot of surface area to capture the dynamics of some instruments, like tympani and kick drum, which have quite a bit of energy across the frequency spectrum. Subs can't make up for it, they operate only at lower frequencies.

Try listening to plucked stand up bass as a demo. You will quickly find out how well the bass drivers are integrated with the rest of the system.

Agreed, Cello is a bit more harmonically complex but stand up bass is a great test too.

 

[audioguy]

Agree on the subs, but I mean main speakers... you need a lot of surface area to capture the dynamics of some instruments, like tympani and kick drum, which have quite a bit of energy across the frequency spectrum. Subs can't make up for it, they operate only at lower frequencies.

Agreed and that is why I noted my last two sets of speakers had dual 12 inch and dual 10 inch woofers respectively.

 

[DaveC]

Agreed and that is why I noted my last two sets of speakers had dual 12 inch and dual 10 inch woofers respectively.

That'll work...

My reference speakers have two 7" woofers and my speakers use a single 15. The two 7" woofers do sound nice but in direct comparison with the 15 they fall short, the higher the volume the bigger the difference...

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . One of rye distances between a Wilson duetta and Alexandria will be height and scale. Tall planars also give you that height. But a duetta with the MCH and ceiling speakers of auro 3d (the Datasat that audioguy referred to does that) gives greater height and scale than rye Alexandria, via multiple speakers

This is tangential but in your view does the Duette plus the ceiling speaker provide greater height than the Alexandria alone because the ceiling speaker sonically extends vertically the Duetta up to the ceiling?

 

[bonzo75]

This is tangential but in your view does the Duetta plus the ceiling speaker provide greater height than the Alexandria alone because the ceiling speaker sonically extends vertically the Duetta up to the ceiling?

My phone is auto correcting the to rye, and differences to distances. Hence the typos in your quote.

But yes, the center channel is invaluable in filling up that loudly image and the height speakers in increasing that scale and height. In a good MCH, when you turn of the ceiling speakers, the soundstage will drop drastically, and when you turn of the MCH, the soundstage will recede further.

Gary who owns Neolith has a MCH and is adding ceiling speakers

 

[JackD201]

Jack, why wouldn't you want 100% dry, if you mean by "wet or dry" the level of "effects" distortion?

Hi Frank

In a nutshell, I don't consider all distortion bad, on the contrary some distortions actually make for more enjoyment by being more "forgiving". I suppose I just don't worship at the church of total fidelity. I just want to have a good time. If it were my job and not my hobby then 100% "dry" would be the target. I think it is just a matter of perspective and it's not a matter of being right or wrong. I understand and respect both view points.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

No you get more choice, because MCH is extended from a 2 ch, and you can play both. Also reason I mentioned classical specifically is that there are over 3k MCH classical discs at least worth owning

Much more than 3k, just on SACD. Much, much more when you factor in BD-A and BD-V. But, I will confess, in classical, while the major repertoire is well covered, actually overcovered for some things like Mahler Symphonies, there are still many holes not covered in Mch in the less popular, but still important, classical repertoire.

http://www.hraudio.net/

But, I am quite happy collecting only Mch, as I have done for over 8 years. I seldom listen in stereo and, if I do, I do not listen in synthesized Mch, though a few of my friends like it. Auro might be an even better Mch synthesis scheme, some say, but I have no plans to go there yet.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

My phone is auto correcting the to rye, and differences to distances. Hence the typos in your quote.

But yes, the center channel is invaluable in filling up that loudly image and the height speakers in increasing that scale and height. In a good MCH, when you turn of the ceiling speakers, the soundstage will drop drastically, and when you turn of the MCH, the soundstage will recede further.

Gary who owns Neolith has a MCH and is adding ceiling speakers

I cannot speak for height speakers using Auro synthesis, as I have no experience, although I have an ongoing interest. But, yes, absolutely, the center channel adds important soundstage information in Mch, as, of course, the surrounds do as well.

Yes, the sense of soundstage depth and dimensionality is quite noticeably increased in discretely recorded Mch vs. the same recording mastered in stereo. The sense of dimensionality of the size and "bodies" of some instruments, like cellos, violins, etc. is more realistic and less like a two dimensional "cardboard cutout" of the instruments.

Soundstage depth and front/back layering of the instruments in the ensemble is enhanced, but in a more realistic, not an artificial, way. The sound stage is noticeably extended forward into the room, while still maintaining its phantom rearward projection behind the speakers, as in stereo. This is not a volume thing. It is about the dimensional image. This is my consensus description, as others who have visited my room for the comparison agree in their own words.

I also agree that planars, like my Martin Logan's, seem to create a better, but not artificial, sense of height with many recordings. I seem to be able to tell if an orchestra is on tiered risers vs. a flat floor. Yet, I hear no artificial height stretching with, for example, a string quartet. My good friend Andy Quint, who reviews for TAS, agrees about the height effect with my system vs. his own. He uses point source Wilson Duette 2's all around in his excellent 5.1 Mch setup, but which he concedes does not project an apparent sense of height like my line source setup does.

I could go on and on. But, these are some of the essential reasons I have become a die hard convert to Mch. It just sounds more like the real thing live to me, as it does to Andy and several other active concert-going friends.

 

[fas42]

Yes, Frank. I think you are right with live music being performed in a room. It will sound great from almost anywhere, even outside in the hallway. But it is different when trying to make two stereo speakers sound convincing, IME. Much more difficult. I have never heard reproduced music from an audio system sound convincing unless the speaker/listener/room relationship was done to maximize the sense of presence. When it all locks in, it is quite noticeable. However, most of my experience is limited to smaller dynamic speakers and a little with planar speakers. If this relationship is not right, one can still be left with other wonderful sonic attributes, but not with a believable sense of presence. Dynamics and imaging may also suffer. This is just my experience, as you say.

As many people of this forum would testify, , my experiences are quite different from most. I accidentally discovered, that for me, that the convincing quality emerges when the level of audible artifacts is below a certain point - and that most of the problem "noise" is due to subtle misbehaviour on the electronics side.

I very much get that "locking in" phenomenon, with believability, dynamics, imaging all falling in place - but only when everything is right. Yes, it is "much more difficult" my way - but the huge plus is that it "sounds great from almost anywhere".

Edit: Al makes the point about radiation patterns but IME this is not part of the equation - when the sound "data" coming in is good enough the ear/brain sorts it all out; and the illusion of a live performance happens wherever you are ...

 

[DaveC]

As many people of this forum would testify, , my experiences are quite different from most. I accidentally discovered, that for me, that the convincing quality emerges when the level of audible artifacts is below a certain point - and that most of the problem "noise" is due to subtle misbehaviour on the electronics side.

I very much get that "locking in" phenomenon, with believability, dynamics, imaging all falling in place - but only when everything is right. Yes, it is "much more difficult" my way - but the huge plus is that it "sounds great from almost anywhere".

Edit: Al makes the point about radiation patterns but IME this is not part of the equation - when the sound "data" coming in is good enough the ear/brain sorts it all out; and the illusion of a live performance happens wherever you are ...

I'm going to have to disagree about the "sounding great anywhere" thing, it's simply a myth and impossible for a stereo system to sound as good outside the sweet spot. When we're listening we're in the sweet spot anyways so I don't get the concern for how it sounds outside it. If you're not in the sweet spot listening your attention is divided and it's just background music at that point anyways.

There are some significant advantages to a system with controlled dispersion whether it be by dipole or waveguide/horn and these advantages totally outweigh any advantage of the system sounding better outside the sweet spot due to a wider dispersion pattern.

This is just my opinion though, speakers are all about personal preference.

 

[fas42]

Why impossible? No-one told me, years ago, how one was supposed to create a "sweet spot" - and the "sounding good everywhere" quality level appeared one day when I wasn't expecting anything special to happen - merely, I had managed to opimise the system enough so that it automatically "switched on", to my sense of hearing. Magical stuff, so that has been my benchmark ever since.

Decently driven omni speakers like the MBLs tend to do that sort of thing, but boring bookshelf boxes can also do it - but the quality of sound emerging from the drivers is key. As a current example, my project at the moment is a half decent combo of electronics with very average small speakers; normal sound is pretty good but it's obviously derived from the speakers, you can "see" where the sound's coming from. But if I rev up the quality enough then they start to disappear, the sound "expands" and fills the room, and adjoining areas - I can walk past the side of them, and sit well behind them - and the sense of the musical experience doesn't change.

It most certainly isn't background music when working this well, it fully captures your attention, draws you in - dispersion patterns of the speakers will help, but I find that the room reflections "fill in the gaps" when you're not in the direct line of fire - IOW, just like how it works for live sounds ...