Is Live, Unamplified Music the Correct Reference for the Sound of our Audio Systems?

[LL21]

- Detail Retrieval

Quite a bugaboo, given that many audiophiles think detail is the existence ultime of audio. I like detail, too, but if you go back to live music, it is a lot more cloudy than many audio systems represent. Occasional flashes of marvelous tone and detail emerging from random clouds of ambience. If you are sacrificing soul for absolute detail, it is fine if you just like it that way, but I don’t like throwing out the baby with the bathwater or isolating goals that much.

- Full-range Extension

Lows and highs are difficult to produce all that well, and likely don’t really survive the journey through the microphones/venues that well, so I will settle for an emulation of naturalness.


- Midrange magic

Self explanatory. Never too much midrange magic. Included with that is imaging and tonality. Toobs, anyone?


- Effortless all out dynamic range

A system that does 0 to 120 db with instantaneous speed and full stop is going to be extremely large and expensive, and probably in a large sonic space. Given that most music is compressed in some way, it is likely unnecessary for home audio. Effortless dynamic range also needs to convey the very soft parts with vibrancy and audibility. What criterion is there for all out dynamic range? 120 db at 3Khz is a lot different than 120db at 20 Hz. A system that can do 120db pink noise without much distortion for five seconds with a very low noise floor probably qualifies as full dynamic range.

Most audiophiles who put a true full range uncompressed recording on their systems will likely be embarrassed that they are constantly turning things up or down during the presentation when the dynamics change.

I would peg my own system as having a dynamic range of 108db, which is probably still overkill for an audiophile system with most kinds of recorded music sources. 105 db of dynamic range is probably plenty if you want your neighbors to still like you. Without instrumentation, it is hard to be exact about any particular system.

A 120db system would blow your wig off in certain instances, but I don’t really care or desire those instances.

- Absolutely ruler-flat technical performance

Boring

- Absolutely extended, filigreed highs...but not one iota of harshness

It depends on if the music is intended to be harsh, but I also value my hearing, so a few dots of harshness are OK source dependent but not necessarily required.
I will sacrifice this authenticity to the gods of enjoyment if he harshness is gratuitous.

- Deep propulsive bass

Booty call, gotta have it, but music can be enjoyed with a mere theoretical low end if there are no practical alternatives.

Thanks for taking the time! For me, retrieval of detail originally was NOT something on my top 3 or even top 5 list. But over the years, I began to appreciate that when the top 3-5 for me was resolved well...detail retrieval (nuances, microdynamics, delineation of instruments, etc) became enjoyable as part of enjoying the music (not enjoying the detail for themselves but enjoying how details gave insight into music).

Effortless dynamics (well, more dynamic than my earlier systems by a long way) has been something of an eye-opener for me...with it, came EASE which has also been an eye opener.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Rulerflat performance one is only going to get if you have a FR measuring device at hand to check it , most likely( if the speaker can do it , not like Kaiser kaweros ) you will gonna get flat FR ,if one listens on TW axis at something like 2 or 3 meters distance .
If you turn your speakers outwards your ging to have a considerable high freq drop of several db s , which is good because most people prefer it to a flat response .
Dynamic range/large bandwith is the bomb afaic , its expensive but that's where the real magic lies , if well done

 

[LL21]

For all the times I have said (and continue to say) live and playback are totally different, I have been stunned by 2 systems which frankly really made me doubt how far apart live is from playback (of certain kinds of music).

1. Genesis 1. Audiocrack's system staggered me when it played 12 string instruments (Vivaldi).

2. Arrakis. Playback of Nirvana's opening track on Unplugged had an effortless attack that was only partly about effortless playback volume...it was also about the 'life-like volumetric' quality of the sound in its space in the room. ie, we often hear/see an instrument in space within the soundstage.

In this case, the sheer power of music coming from that instrument in the room was shocking. By comparison the big Wilsons (in 3 different setups over time since its a test track for me...in 2 different rooms) produced a power/volumetric impact on that instrument that was about 65% of the power/intensity/volumetric impact of that same instrument in that Arrakis set up. (Sadly, I forgot to bring that track to Audiocrack's place, but I did have other tracks and Audiocrack's Genesis 1s were perhaps another 25% yet again from a very unscientific recollection...but that is a real guesstimate.)

Is that live? Frankly, i bet not at all...but it was the first time Kurt Cobain had more than just human-sized imagery in the room...he also had human-sized 'physical power/impact' in the room. Again for those who have not heard the Arrakis, but have heard the big Focals or big Wilsons X1-XLF, imagine those being around 65% (ie, put another way, like the difference between Wilson Sasha vs Wilson X1-XLF)

 

[DaveC]

Dynamic range/large bandwith is the bomb afaic , its expensive but that's where the real magic lies , if well done

Yup, I see it as a prerequisite and the foundation of a good system along with dispersion pattern. Accurate tone, resolution and absence of fatigue are what make it something special though, for my tastes.

Lots of systems have good technical performance but aren't very engaging or fun to listen to, it's unfortunate these aspects of system performance are not well defined or understood.

 

[LL21]

...Dynamic range/large bandwith is the bomb afaic...

...its expensive but that's where the real magic lies...

Agree on both...

 

[andromedaaudio]

Arrakis is definitively a speaker id like to hear , he should make it more easy to drive which aint that hard , then it would be a more succesfull speaker.
All the crowd who love low powered amps will never buy them but buy a Wilson instead , but it might be an easier load these days

 

[morricab]

The challenge Ron is how do any of us know what is 'exactly on the tape' or 'exactly' how the tape is supposed to sound? Take a brand new recorded tape that was completed 5 minutes ago...walk it into the next room and push play. How does anyone know in that new room what that tape was supposed to sound like? Maybe it was not supposed to even sound like the actual live event it was recording? Maybe the sound engineer played around to soften certain elements, etc.

My only personal reference is to use 'memory' of live instruments...and continually strive to find certain recordings that (if they come closer and closer to that aural memory or live) somehow start to result in most of my other recordings ALSO starting to sound more and more like live. This is again an assumption that recording engineers are in fact trying to reproduce a good facsimile of the original live event.

In my own experience, with certain recordings, the more i have honed the system to bring more details, more attack, etc out of those recordings, the more I have enjoyed my other recordings...and generally, i have attempted to 'reference back' to what I think are natural, real instruments. I know of no other reference on which I can personally rely.

I found it very helpful to make my own recordings from time to time...of course you need willing musicians and good recording gear...

 

[morricab]

Live 'unamplified' music is my reference. Everybody should be trying to hear this, it really is pretty easy to hear the difference between 'live/ unamplified' music and reproduced.
In my case, this may be a little easier to do, as I very often play the 'live' instrument in a band setting...so as they say--'getting close and personal' is fairly
easy for me to do. OTOH, even attending any 'live' symphonic work or large band will also give you a great reference.
I hate to say this, but people who believe that we are even close to achieving what the sound of 'live' sounds like in our listening room, really don't have much experience with the 'live' event if they can say such a thing, IMHO.

Morricab's post earlier about his ex-wife's violin playing and my example of the guitar are truly what it is that we should be listening to- and ...again IMHO, trying to recreate.

I mostly agree but where we diverge somewhat is what is achievable in the home. I would say anything beyond a quartet of instruments begins to become impossible but solo and/or duet performances can be made highly realistic...still not by most systems though.

 

[DaveyF]

I mostly agree but where we diverge somewhat is what is achievable in the home. I would say anything beyond a quartet of instruments begins to become impossible but solo and/or duet performances can be made highly realistic...still not by most systems though.

Agreed, they appear to be quite realistic. However, here's what's so very interesting...and naturally IME; once you get the very same players into your room ( IOW, live music), you then realize how far from reality the very same recording is....no matter how great the system.
Not to say that the best recording of quartet instruments or duets is anything but highly enjoyable on the best systems.

 

[andromedaaudio]

LL 21, I think that's partly because the wilsons although nice sounding are not true full range speakers , afaik they used focal audiom woofers and as seen on the specs of those theyre not flat to 20- 25 hz , the new papers ones used in the alexx are gonna be worse I fear
The arrakis at the time used a double 15 inch woofer from audiotechnology although the specs weren't very readable on the graph they might roll of less then the focals.
Plus 2 15 inchers gonna move more air then a 13 / 15 inch combo respectively , plus the arrakis are sidefiring woofers , I listen now a couple of years to a sidefiring woofersystem and its amazing love it.
Gentle , not so much in your face , but the force is there when needed and then some

 

[LL21]

LL 21, I think that's partly because the wilsons although nice sounding are not true full range speakers , afaik they used focal audiom woofers and as seen on the specs of those theyre not flat to 20- 25 hz , the new papers ones used in the alexx are gonna be worse I fear
The arrakis at the time used a double 15 inch woofer from audiotechnology although the specs weren't very readable on the graph they might roll of less then the focals.
Plus 2 15 inchers gonna move more air then a 13 / 15 inch combo respectively , plus the arrakis are sidefiring woofers , I listen now a couple of years to a sidefiring woofersystem and its amazing love it.
Gentle , not so much in your face , but the force is there when needed and then some

Yes, it is not a fair fight...the surface area of the Arrakis speakers is greater...and volume-wise, it is a much bigger speaker...6 foot 9 inches (2.05m)...and weighing 900 pounds (410kg) per speaker! However, by adding even 1 DD18+, it DOES help the big Wilson step up to the challenge. The Arrakis speaker has 2 x 15" woofers plus 2 8" woofers for midbass.

Interestingly...what do you make of the fact that BOTH speakers have 1x1" tweeter and 2x6" or 5.25" mids? Wouldnt one think that to get the enormous scale that the ARrakis would also need more surface area on the uppers?

You design speakers, so thanks for any insight here.

Of course, that is where the WAMM gets more interesting...i think it is 1 tweeter and basically 4 midrange modules (2 upper/2 lower)?

 

[morricab]

Agreed, they appear to be quite realistic. However, here's what's so very interesting...and naturally IME; once you get the very same players into your room ( IOW, live music), you then realize how far from reality the very same recording is....no matter how great the system.
Not to say that the best recording of quartet instruments or duets is anything but highly enjoyable on the best systems.

Well, I made recordings with my ex standing between the speakers and the microphone at the listening position and use those as one of my main references. I was able to get pretty close on direct playback actually.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Yes the arrakis has 2 8 inch mid bass units on the front as well .
New Wamm , no not for me I need more bass if it was a 2 towersystem for the money may be yes , but for that money I d rather buy an arrakis plus a boulder 3060 which should drive it to the maxx , convergent legend pre at the helm

 

[LL21]

Yes the arrakis has 2 8 inch mid bass units on the front as well .
New Wamm , no not for me I need more bass if it was a 2 towersystem for the money may be yes , but for that money I d rather buy an arrakis plus a boulder 3060 which should drive it to the maxx , convergent legend pre at the helm

Totally agree...(at least until i hear the WAMM, that is!) But yes, generally, I still have my eye on the Arrakis medium to long term.

 

[LL21]

Andromedaaudio,

What do you think of the Arrakis design of 1 x 1" tweeter and 2 x 5.25" midrange modules...and the other 4 cones are midbass and bass? I somehow seemed surprised that the Arrakis and Wilson have similar cone surface area for the uppers and mids.

Is scale in the upper/mids also related to cabinet size or other things that would enable the Arrakis to come across as so much more substantial a speaker?

 

[andromedaaudio]

The mids and tweeters don't play a part in scale , the 8 inch bass mid a little bit , but the big woofers give you the scale .
I ve listened in my XPE speakerdevelopment in the beginning only to the MTM section no woofers , then it merely sounds like a very good 2 /2,5 way system .
But add those woofers and immediately there is the scale and foundation, it transcends the design immediately , from " mediocre" to first class

 

[LL21]

The mids and tweeters don't play a part in scale , the 8 inch bass mid a little bit , but the big woofers give you the scale .
I ve listened in my XPE speakerdevelopment in the beginning only to the MTM section no woofers , then it merely sounds like a very good 2 /2,5 way system .
But add those woofers and immediately there is the scale and foundation, it transcends the design immediately , from " mediocre" to first class

Interesting...i certainly have found scale to go up several notches when i turn the Velodyne DD18+ on...but somehow i assumed that at some point, the uppers/mids also need to get more surface area to keep pace over and above a certain level. Hence why i assume the big Genesis 1 scales so well above anything i have ever heard.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Interesting...i certainly have found scale to go up several notches when i turn the Velodyne DD18+ on...but somehow i assumed that at some point, the uppers/mids also need to get more surface area to keep pace over and above a certain level. Hence why i assume the big Genesis 1 scales so well above anything i have ever heard.

Very well understood , that's why I woud rather buy an arrakis for example than a Wilson with aftermarket subs , because you cant balance out everything from the bottom up .
An arrakis is the total combined / designed package by the designer , a Wilson is not nescessarily designed to use with subs , it might work that's not what I'm saying , but its not taken as a design consideration

 

[andromedaaudio]

The sonus faber fenice is also a very nice full range speaker i think although a hard drive , a boulder 3060 for power and a pre for the magic .

 

[Ron Resnick]

I was in Ireland recently , for a wedding..heard tons of unamped music at pubs etc but one performance stuck in my mind..At the wedding reception there was an unamplified bass player and pianist making beautiful music.. what went thru my head after standing right next to the performers was ... the double bass sounds better on my hifi...

And what do you conclude from that, Rodney?