Live music, Tone and Presence: What most systems get wrong

[morricab]

He did not step in front of the firing squad. The way things should ideally go is, because one regularly goes to concerts, while occasionally demoing hifi he steps in front of something and goes Ah...this is closest to my concert experience

Unfortunately the way this thread started is, because I went to a cello concert yesterday, I realized the thing that I own at home is right and all others are wrong. There was no discovery of a hifi component relating to a concert, it seems to be the discovery of a concert confirming the bias of a set up owned at home

You don't know me Ked but those who do know that this is not at all how I have got from where I was to where I am. I had a live-in top profi violinist for close to 5 years and know intimately what a violin of the highest order (think Strad, Guarneri, Amati) sounds like: in my former listening room, in small chambers, in large halls etc. etc. I made recordings, I analyzed the sound patterns different instruments made because of my curiosity as to what harmonics they make and what makes them sound different. I went from conventional speakers with good SS and later good hybrid on planars to SET BECAUSE it sounded more like what I heard live. I have been relentless in that direction...not meandering in the wilderness like most here and you it seems. It always sounds more real even though there are still plenty of flaws...no one is denying this. I have influence on people's choices because of my consistency to a goal and that they hear that it bears positive fruit. So they slowly, slowly change because they hear it too.

Before becoming "domestically compliant" I had a huge system with two pairs of Acoustat: Spectra 2200s from full range and Spectra 4400s for the "subs". All driven by KR Audio VA350s (I had 3 of them at one time). I cut the "subs" in around 60Hz and balanced the two speakers with the gain separately adjusted and measured with a spectrum analyzer. That system gobsmacked a lot of people, including a professor/musician friend of mine who swore he never heard a system sound so real (his rich parents held home concerts on a regular basis and he is a pianist and neurobiologist). I had at least three or four others more or less trying to copy the system. I KNOW that SET + electrostat can sound wonderful.

I had an interesting experience in London once as well. I went to KJ West One to audition a pair of Wilson Benesch Arc speakers that they had for sale for a reasonable price. I made an appointment and went with my wife to audition. They had it set up in a downstairs room with top Audio Research preamp (Ref 3 at that time) and Reference 210 monoblocks. CD player was the Krell SACD standard. The sound, for lack of a better word, sucked and it was over 40K worth of gear on speakers selling for 1K. I said to the guy that sorry the WBs didn't sound very good and he said..."It's the Audio Research amps that are damaging the sound". Well, I was bowled over by that candid admission. I asked if maybe the Krell player was to blame and he said that no, the Krell was actually superb and so was the Ref 3 preamp. Damn! The most expensive part of the system was letting it down.

I asked to come back and bring my KR with me and they said fine. A week later I returned and they had the same Krell player but now the speakers were just upstairs in their main room with lots of other gear. I hooked up the amp, warmed it up and hit play. Damn if that wasn't fine sound coming out. The main guy there (now has a shop called Audio Lounge near Oxford Street) was impressed with what he heard and came over. A totally random guy, who was there shopping for Sonus Faber speakers, suddenly came over and asked if I minded if he joined me and could play some of his music. The sound was really good with that simple system...better than most would believe but it drew people in to listen. I ended up leaving without the speakers (got some small Odeons that were even better) but I did leave my amp with them for a week because they liked the sound so much. It simply blew away ARCs best at that time.

I had another dealer (Choice Hifi guy) come to my london flat and hear the KR with the Odeons and my Monarchy DAC (still my main choice although Lampizator is closing in on me) and he was just smiling saying how good that little system sounded...so musical, transparent and coherent. THis was a guy with hundreds of thousands in gear at home and a lot of experience. He helped me sell one of the KRs.

FWIW, for the sake of domestic compliance, I tried to go back to normal speakers and more conventional amps. After I returned from London, I got a pair of Genesis VI speakers. Quite ok and I drove them with an Einstein "The Absolute Tune" to protect my newborn daughter at the time from burning tubes. That was less ok. Despite the pedigree (I had liked the OTLs from Einstein very much) it was merely ok with everything and a trial on Apogees against NAT showed how flawed it was tonally, dynamically and transparency. Then I went to Reference 3a speakers, for dynamic speakers they are very good actually, despite being quite affordable. Probably the first brand ever to go to carbon fiber drivers. I also tried other amp technologies like push/pull triode in the form of the VAC 30/30, which I believe you are familiar and the SE(Transistor) hybrid from NAT, which I doubt you have heard. Inexorably though, I was drawn back to SET and in search of a speaker because every time I listened live I heard the gaps in my system. I couldn't, for domestic reasons, go back to planar...although I toyed with the idea but I always remembered how good Odeons had sounded at shows and my little pair (only horn tweeter) in London. Yes, Odeons sound FANTASTIC at shows...consistently. Guess what? THey sound that way at home too. I auditioned my La Bohemes and realized that here was a horn that had coloration levels low enough to be satisfied with all the other strengths that horns bring. Now it was a perfect platform for a SET amp. I have been through a few to find the least colored that balances closer to live like i heard last Sunday.

So, I tried to go back but there was no going back once you know what the instruments should sound like. The horns I found just happen to fit more domestically than big stats, which I still love to listen to. Avantgarde's smaller horns didn't cut it for me...too many flaws and coherence issues. Other brands were too big or too expensive.

I commented on the concert because it had been a while since i had heard instruments played in earnest up close. It brought back a lot of memories, like the concert in a London Victorian home, like the home concerts my ex used to play in rich patron's houses in Zurich (with a Bosendorfer concert grand as accompaniment), like the recordings I made of the 24 Paganini Caprices with my ex playing between my speakers and so on. I analyze data for a living and i have learned how to analyze what I hear and I know enough about electronics and distortion to see how the two fit together. If I listen to cello at home, my sound is a bit lighter weight than I heard live...but the main elements are there. I can turn on my powered sub and get the weight correct but it smears a bit the coherence and transparency...a tradeoff. Sometimes, with electronic music, I am willing to make it for the punch of the sound and depth of bass but for acoustic music I prize the transparency and insight of leaving it off.

 

[morricab]

Yes, at Henk's and I also compared them on YGs with Burm 911 and Boulder 2160. They were not as good. On Apogees, you need the class A power, current, whatever, for the ribbon to take off. A well driven ribbon will produce better vocals than a not well driven ribbon, irrespective of the tonal difference of the amp that you note if you use both on, say, your speaker

Edit: So I have gone from not being a scientist to Feynman?

If you have read that book you will know that this was a polite way of saying Mr. Feynman had made a mistake...in that context socially.

 

[morricab]

I was hitting 20-25w peaks on a 100 lb LM Audio 845 SET the other weekend on 91db speakers with minimum impedance of 7.5 ohms. That probably is 5% distortion on peaks if not higher. Here is the admittedly smaller tformer 845 measurements:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/...ed-amplifier-measurements#4UAVVbDHuDp7E0WU.97

The 219 should measure much better in the bass due to less output transformer saturation, but I would expect distortion to be as high at power. So consider me doubtful of any SET on panels at realistic volumes as headroom will be severely challenged.

Its only a question of whether you hear it or not. At higher volumes your ear's tolerance for distortion increases.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, excellent post Tao.

You said, with SET on the ribbons, "played a cello sonata and heard all the SET magic but also in the big picture, missed sufficient definition within the mid bass structure and also it left the music less coherent than I prefer. " When I heard SETs on ribbons, I heard them missing aspects of the music. My suspicion is, not being a techie, the ribbon is not being sufficiently extended (because that is when the impedance drops and needs to be controlled, and when the ribbon comes back the impedance goes up leading to swings). Whatever that control is, the current from class A SS is producing the ribbon tone better.

 

[ddk]

Really?? Have you actually listened to Plinius amps? Vocals? Bass maybe...in a heavy handed sort of way...but vocals?? Surely you're joking Mr. Bonzo...

Everytime I hear Pilinius it sounds as if someone is vomiting BLARRRRGH, BLARRRRRRRGH... along with Halcro and Gamut the absolute worst! I could mention a few more but...

Reading this thread is amusing, we're very much on the same page!
david

 

[bonzo75]

To Brad's post:

The Apogees with NATs don't sound right at all.

I don't like AR either, and I like KR, does not mean I will use KR on Apogees, having heard the VA350 on Christoph's Apogee and even having liked some tonality

I don't like the smaller AGs you mentioned.

I don't like ARC amps. They are awesome to buy and sell used though.

I liked the Acoustats.

I don't consider the Odeon horns - I have heard the 28, one model lower than yours, with multiple amps.

And I will never have big planars in small spaces, they need big spaces and they need to be driven like they were designed to be.

The VAC 30 did not sound anywhere as good as Jadis or NAT.

SETs have a limitation, and if I get, at different price points, the Heco Direkt, hORN Universums, Trios, or WE, I will go SETs.

 

[bonzo75]

Everytime I hear Pilinius it sounds as if someone is vomiting BLARRRRGH, BLARRRRRRRGH... along with Halcro and Gamut the absolute worst! I could mention a few more but...

Reding this thread is amusing, we're very much on the same page!
david

It's not the same page, because though you like SETs, you have them on giant horns, not small ones, and you will not have speakers that are not made for SETs

 

[morricab]

Lol... it's a trainwreck.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ow-Austin-Acoustic&highlight=austin+acoustics

See what you mean. THose speakers didn't look so special for 500K. i liked all the tubes though . I used to have an Accuphase F-25...not bad but lowered the transparency of the system I had at the time. Had to get rid of it...

 

[PeterA]

I commented on the concert because it had been a while since i had heard instruments played in earnest up close. It brought back a lot of memories, like the concert in a London Victorian home, like the home concerts my ex used to play in rich patron's houses in Zurich (with a Bosendorfer concert grand as accompaniment), like the recordings I made of the 24 Paganini Caprices with my ex playing between my speakers and so on. I analyze data for a living and i have learned how to analyze what I hear and I know enough about electronics and distortion to see how the two fit together. If I listen to cello at home, my sound is a bit lighter weight than I heard live...but the main elements are there. I can turn on my powered sub and get the weight correct but it smears a bit the coherence and transparency...a tradeoff. Sometimes, with electronic music, I am willing to make it for the punch of the sound and depth of bass but for acoustic music I prize the transparency and insight of leaving it off.

morricab, thanks for that well written and informative post. It helps to explain and give context to your experience. I extracted the above paragraph because it matches my experience with subs in my system. A few years ago I had a pair of subs to augment my mini monitor Magico Mini IIs. I thought they would give me more bass extension and low frequency power. After a few months of trying to integrate them with my system, I reached the same conclusion as you have. They effected the overall coherence and transparency of my system. I enjoyed the added extension and LF power, but they detracted from midrange clarity. Because I listen mostly to smaller scale acoustic music, with only the occasional symphony or rock/pop, I decided the trade off was not worth it to me in my system. And because the room is not dedicated and serves as a formal living room or guests, I decided to sell the subs. The effect of the subs was clearly heard in string quartets and solo cello.

I envy your extensive experience listening to live music in small settings, and I now have a better sense of how these experiences have shaped your opinions. Thanks for that.

 

[morricab]

To Brad's post:

The Apogees with NATs don't sound right at all.

I don't like AR either, and I like KR, does not mean I will use KR on Apogees, having heard the VA350 on Christoph's Apogee and even having liked some tonality

I don't like the smaller AGs you mentioned.

I don't like ARC amps. They are awesome to buy and sell used though.

I liked the Acoustats.

I don't consider the Odeon horns - I have heard the 28, one model lower than yours, with multiple amps.

And I will never have big planars in small spaces, they need big spaces and they need to be driven like they were designed to be.

The VAC 30 did not sound anywhere as good as Jadis or NAT.

SETs have a limitation, and if I get, at different price points, the Heco Direkt, hORN Universums, Trios, or WE, I will go SETs.

NATs don't sound right on Apogees at all?? Really? But they sounded fine with Analysis Audio...a speaker that is VERY similar in design. Hmmm...

You should know that I like the sound of Christoph's Centaur Majors with the KR better than the Studio Grands...the Centaur in his main room sounds very good...a highly unrated Apogee.

You like the Acoustats...I should hope so because that is a good sounding setup with KR and it works really well...in a small room! THey are not huge planars but they are not small either.

I think the VAC 30/30 sounds as good but you may be right about Jadis and NAT.

I don't have one model higher than the 28...Christoph does. I have the La Boheme, which is a 2-way full horn design with a 10 inch mid/bass feeding a back loaded horn and a sensitivity of about 97-98db. It was the top full horn Odeon. The other models have a reflex bass design and front loaded tweeter and mid.

Of course SETs have limitations...however, they are not nearly as limited as you claim and I am not talking about 1-10 watt SETs I am talking about 20-60 watt SETs.

BTW, I would not recommend a moderate powered SET for Apogees in a really big room or if you wanted 120db peaks. I understand about power limitations.


But a friend of mine switched to SET for this Thiel CS3.7s, something that if you asked members of this forum they would cry how you cannot possibly drive those speakers with "only" 27 watts. But he did and you know, he went from big SS amps (McIntosh MC501s) to pretty big tube amps (Octave MRE130 monos) to modest PP triode (VAC 30/30) to SET(Cayin 9024 monos). We have the Diana over there too...drives the hell out of the Thiels. Thiels never sounded better... The previous best for Thiels I had heard was the old CS3.6 with BAT VK120 monos and VK5i preamp.

The Diana made his Cabasse Baltic Evo balls sound simply like I never thought that speaker could sound. A level I thought was limited by the speaker and now I know it was not the speaker at all. Presence was almost horn like and not conventional speaker like. Thiels have great presence too but a bit more analytical.

 

[NorthStar]

Brad (morricab), you've got a good thread going on here.

 

[morricab]

morricab, thanks for that well written and informative post. It helps to explain and give context to your experience. I extracted the above paragraph because it matches my experience with subs in my system. A few years ago I had a pair of subs to augment my mini monitor Magico Mini IIs. I thought they would give me more bass extension and low frequency power. After a few months of trying to integrate them with my system, I reached the same conclusion as you have. They effected the overall coherence and transparency of my system. I enjoyed the added extension and LF power, but they detracted from midrange clarity. Because I listen mostly to smaller scale acoustic music, with only the occasional symphony or rock/pop, I decided the trade off was not worth it to me in my system. And because the room is not dedicated and serves as a formal living room or guests, I decided to sell the subs. The effect of the subs was clearly heard in string quartets and solo cello.

I envy your extensive experience listening to live music in small settings, and I now have a better sense of how these experiences have shaped your opinions. Thanks for that.

Yeah, it helps to understand the path sometimes. If you are ever in Europe, feel free to drop by for a chamber "concert" . That of course extends to other members as well.

The only time I got "subs" to truly work right was using HUGE Acoustat panels as subs. I had a small(er) pair that did the mids and highs better for some reason (never could figure out why) and a big pair that had gobsmackingly good bass. It bettered the IRS Beta bass, it bettered the Apogee Grand bass, it bettered the Genesis VI bass (the best from a smallish speaker I have heard). It bettered any bass horn setup I have heard as well. It was flat to 20Hz with room shaking power...and no overhang at all. The fact that they were essentially same panels just more of them meant that it was the same quality and texture of sound.

The sub I have now is a really good bipolar servo sub (Mirage BPSS210) and it has a great controller that makes integration really good but still not perfect. It is really close for electronic and rock music but classical texture is audibly different on bass instruments and up through the mids to a small extent (I cross at 50hz so not too much mid bleed.) I also have it right next to the horn for max time coherence...it matters...a lot.

 

[morricab]

Brad (morricab), you've got a good thread going on here.

THX! I just like to vent my thoughts on things audio from time to time. I tend to think big picture and look at underlying cause and effect. Part of my scientific training I suppose.

 

[KeithR]

Here's live cello against recorded SET cello for the peanut gallery -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1K2dhYRh5E

I've heard this demo live as well.

 

[NorthStar]

Here's live cello against recorded SET cello for the peanut gallery -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1K2dhYRh5E

I've heard this demo live as well.

@ exactly 8:39 and 10:19 what do you think it is?

* The 'Presence' of the instrument in the room is much more evident than in the recording with the room's reverberation added.
The recording is not accurate, it is colored. The capture by the microphone is 'imperfect'.
The 'Tone' of the cello? If the presence is better Live the Tone also is, because the recording not only colors the true 'Live' atmosphere but also the tonality of the instrument.
Brad was very correct in his first original post. And this is only a youtube video @ low resolution audio.

The musician, Vincent, has an expression that tells us a lot without saying a single word, when listening to the recording.

 

[DaveC]

See what you mean. THose speakers didn't look so special for 500K. i liked all the tubes though . I used to have an Accuphase F-25...not bad but lowered the transparency of the system I had at the time. Had to get rid of it...

Lol, yeah... I certainly didn't give them the best value award. And I thought they would suck when when I first saw them, with that comically small midrange horn. But it turns out they were amazing, a step beyond modern HiFi using decades old technology.

 

[cjfrbw]

Yup, the musician's expression is interesting, because it does not appear that he hears from the system what he plays with his instrument and he is a little miffed. Even with the limitations of the youtube video, the instrument's attack and bloom are blunted and homogenized in the recording.

 

[Folsom]

This topic is making lite on the fact that the recording matters an awful lot.

For example Mike's Rostropovich cut that's a wonderful demo sounds soooo different from most other cello recordings. It was very well done and gives a presentation that exceeds who knows how many other recordings. Having something that good can even help a system produce something that may not be it's explicit talent.

If we wanted true to life productions, and I wouldn't say we don't, we'd have to put much higher demands on the recording, mixing, and mastering from the people involved to the equipment. Honestly though I enjoy an awful lot of albums that aren't life like, and never will be, just as they are since listening to choices in production can be a great experience depending on the type of music. With classical I don't feel that way, but for pop I can't deny that I can get more enjoyment out of something not as life like with many albums. Anyone who's spent time around musicians & live pop music can probably understand that.

 

[DaveC]

Yup, the musician's expression is interesting, because it does not appear that he hears from the system what he plays with his instrument and he is a little miffed. Even with the limitations of the youtube video, the instrument's attack and bloom are blunted and homogenized in the recording.

Musicians can have a skewed/biased perspective on how the mix should sound, and they often listen differently, concentrating specifically on their performance in relation to the rest of the band. And when they perform they are hearing their instrument more closely and loudly then the rest, hearing things the audience never notices. Of course some musicians are able to listen more neutrally, but in general I'd be skeptical of their opinion. Being a musician can be a curse in some ways, too much involvement in making the sausage.

 

[cjfrbw]

Musicians aren't always audiophiles per se and it is reputed that some get by with relatively low performance in audio systems as long as they can get the timing and playing cues. Maybe some of them think being an audiophile is the curse.

I do think they would have better ability to see into the recording for certain kinds of information. I also think they are mightily tuned into the tone and projection of their own instruments. If they weren't, I can't see how they would perform in a way that captures an audience, since the instrument is an organ of communication.

I do remember reading in the workshop parts of jazz magazines that musicians would struggle mightily to get certain tonalities from their instruments and performances. There was one who worked on metallurgic combinations for two years before he found a cymbal tone he wanted.

Over the years, I have also heard that musicians are routinely disappointed with the recorded sound of instruments vs. what they hear in their own and other's live performances. Maybe it's just a different standard to argue about instead of an "audiophile standard".

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/02/06/flight-of-the-concord