Soundstage Reproduction and Scale: Does Speaker Size Matter?

[DasguteOhr]

I absolutely love that song by “Dead Can Dance” I believe? The room has three turntables and many LP’s stacked on edge. Is that an LP playing or other? If one can obtain an analogue recording of that would someone say from where?

Dead can dance -into the labyrinth lp(1993) only used search for mint

Dead Can Dance - Into The Labyrinth

Auf Discogs können Sie sich ansehen, wer an 1993 Vinylvon Into The Labyrinth mitgewirkt hat, Rezensionen und Titellisten lesen und auf dem Marktplatz nach der Veröffentlichung suchen.

www.discogs.com

Other vid michel jonasz- fablous mr swing one of best recordings i have

 

[gleeds]

Having spent a great deal of time with them, I agree with wil on the MM7s. The same on the Boenicke's, while excellent, always felt truncated in terms of the image height. The MM7s can render an image that varies from small and intimate to big and bold. I imagine the Von Scweikart VR11s do the same. Ron just listened to the Wilson Chronosonic XVS, which I suspect has a rather substantial image size. Naturally, these are all MTM point source loudspeakers.

A line array will have a different wave pattern and virtually no floor or ceiling reflections, as well as being considerably more linear in amplitude than a point source as one gets further away from the speaker. If find line arrays provide quite a very realistic sense of scale across a wide area.

As you can see, the MM-7 is an MTM monitor with two Accuton mid-range drivers flanking the ribbon, and two 11" woofers above and below plus the bass towers (usually four per side).

So in these examples, is it the speaker height creating the image size or - is it the speakers' coherence (as referenced by Dasgute Ohr's Susskind example), or is the extended frequency response and nearly unlimited dynamics of the larger speakers contributing to the illusion?

I wonder? My guess is it is a bit of all three plus other factors.

 

[DasguteOhr]

Having spent a great deal of time with them, I agree with wil on the MM7s. The same on the Boenicke's, while excellent, always felt truncated in terms of the image height. The MM7s can render an image that varies from small and intimate to big and bold. I imagine the Von Scweikart VR11s do the same. Ron just listened to the Wilson Chronosonic XVS, which I suspect has a rather substantial image size. Naturally, these are all MTM point source loudspeakers.

A line array will have a different wave pattern and virtually no floor or ceiling reflections, as well as being considerably more linear in amplitude than a point source as one gets further away from the speaker. If find line arrays provide quite a very realistic sense of scale across a wide area.

As you can see, the MM-7 is an MTM monitor with two Accuton mid-range drivers flanking the ribbon, and two 11" woofers above and below plus the bass towers (usually four per side).

So in these examples, is it the speaker height creating the image size or - is it the speakers' coherence (as referenced by Dasgute Ohr's Susskind example), or is the extended frequency response and nearly unlimited dynamics of the larger speakers contributing to the illusion?

I wonder? My guess is it is a bit of all three plus other factors.

View attachment 99541

You must hear really good small speakers paired with world class amps.
Dynamic is not problem in the right room,the problem is if the sound is good, sometimes you want to listen louder then it becomes dangerous for the small speakers. My tipp for you

 

[Alrainbow]

Dead can dance -into the labyrinth lp(1993) only used search for mint

Dead Can Dance - Into The Labyrinth

Auf Discogs können Sie sich ansehen, wer an 1993 Vinylvon Into The Labyrinth mitgewirkt hat, Rezensionen und Titellisten lesen und auf dem Marktplatz nach der Veröffentlichung suchen.

www.discogs.com

Other vid michel jonasz- fablous mr swing one of best recordings i have

View attachment 99398

I own the cd , digital download and several lp mint condition
this first I heard this album at capital audio fest in the vac von swag room best system I ever heard

 

[Ivo]

Read beyond the [brackets] if you don't have the time and skip to part/post 3 for conclusions..

[PART 1: Questions:

Speakers...'bigger is better?' It is often certainly more true than 'smaller is better'; but if its about sound-stage and imaging, things get a bit more complicated. I read many posts in this thread that made good sense. And yes, size matters, but actually, everything matters when in the game of achieving the best of the best. It however doesn’t mean we can simply say smaller is better or that larger is better for large-scale sound stage qualities. To sort it all out here in this thread, we should maybe deduct the original question into the following eight questions:

1. Do we need a (large) baffle (front surface of cabinet) with certain height, combined with perhaps more far-spread- distributed membrane surface of drivers in it?

2. Do we need the drivers mounted in this baffle to be of certain size and height from ground to ceiling in order to create certain desired scale of reproduction of sound as a result of its acoustic energy reflection + dispersion over the height/z axis in the room? Can we after/during considering these things, ultimately fulfil the needs of us most demanding listeners towards a perception of this being done/produced in a way that it represents top notch studio and concert reproduction?

3. What is the role of baffle-edges to be milled down in 45 degrees, of feature rounded edges all around the baffle if speaking about this same scale of reproduction?

4. Do we need sound, especially when considered to be at the right 'scale', to exist as being recognisable from coming from our speakers, speaker baffles, electrostatic panels, drivers, cabinets, diffusers etc?

5. Do we qualify this (size vs sound-stage scale) also by wanting a most genuine, or most interpretable (emotional, and three-dimensional hearing-input) quality, or are we going for the all-round "size" of impressiveness?

6. Are we willing to accept the implications of, and start to understand that, our ears have only two small single entries, so what will make us locate sounds the way we can/do (ear + brain), and what is the difference between hearing imaging/sound stage width, depth, vs height?

7. Do speaker cabinets in-room have an influence to room acoustics?

8. Do larger speakers have more benefits over smaller speakers in terms of sound stage, or is it the other way around?]

 

[Ivo]

[PART 2: Answers could then be more factual and come as:

1: No. We don’t need a big baffle. If all equal, we can even say the slimmer and smaller the baffle, the better the sound stage potential will be unconstrained from speaker dimensions. A slimmer baffle will have less energy reflected from its front surface. Sound that is indirectly arriving to the ear, will almost arrive as fast as the driver’s output and thus will be hard to filter out for our brain and thus spoil realism. Therefore, brands like eg. Wilson and Rockport provide their better models with absorbing materials on their baffles, as shows an understanding of how indirect baffle sound might spoil ultimate time-resolution and provide anti-time-smearing design features. Without such measures, and more importantly, without good filters between drivers, we need what I would call ‘secondary artifices’ to bring the ‘big stage’ come true, let alone keeping up being so much effortless synergy of drivers, true and ‘alive’.

2. No. We can create a similar or phase/ear/interpretation-perfect output towards our ears -similar in the sense of what they would catch if being at a live concert or recording: and here there is no limitation of sound stage dimensions, including height. Only if we include the right spatial information coming our way we can set us free from listening to a certain size and presence speakers (and their outputs).

3. Any secondary artefact to the original output (from the speaker’s drivers) will hurt sound staging capabilities in all 3 dimensions. And most so because close-by reflections on panel, baffle etc, will deteriorate the ingenuity of the musical performance we like to reproduce. If we have a hard-edged plain (e.g. the baffle) sound will resonate over its length and width. Smaller, slimmer baffles with rounded of edges are the best design choice, when possible.

4. No, we want the speakers to disappear. A smaller speaker will be easier to do so. And this brings us closer to our goals.

5. Yes, and rather the first than the second. Disappearing speaker, or stereo point source, can provide all and any type of dimensional (or other) information in a very satisfying way, making us forget about our systems and enjoying the music from first-rang (most expensive seats) in the concert hall. How long would a less-genuine, but perhaps more impressive, type of reproduction suit us?

6. Hoping yes, and seeing more and more yes; we should pay more attention to certain technical/acoustic/psychoacoustics facts and their implications. YES: we can make a very big sound from small speakers (if drivers/tech is up to that job). And NO there is then no real difference if speaking about the basic factors that help us to psycho-acoustically experience musical reality.

7. Yes they do. And a smaller cabinet, and/or those with better energy distribution on their reflective surfaces, bring less (virtually always negative) interactions to the sound stage and imaging qualities of the system.

8. Yes and no. As a final answer we could say: best of best is a (relatively) small non-interfering cabinet with very large-speaker-type capabilities. And with no vertical output/interpretation constrains (height). In all mid-fi/non-point-source applications, the chances are high the bigger one wins.]

 

[Ivo]

Conclusion:

Speaking of speakers that all have their size-independent time/phase/filter/baffle issues: Bigger speakers often sound bigger, and reproduce sound stages that are then also bigger, when compared to small speakers. So bigger here can be seen as one of the essential benefits for going for large units or panels if speaking about baffle surface. BUT, smaller top-tier speakers have the potential to throw a better and even FAR BIGGER sound stage than top-tier big speakers ever could, BECAUSE from a listener's point of view/hearing, they will not be 'gluing' so much acoustic energy to to their physical surfaces. This leads to a potentially much airier, more effortless, more genuine and more emotionally receptive type of musical reproduction. Small size, with the rest beinge equal, make it potentially much easier, rather than harder, to reach best-level soundstaging, if these smaller speakers are of the right top-notch soundstage-pedigree.

Going for modern phase/time aligned and coherent multi-ways in the league most fitting to our best-level-needs and interests, performance might actually save us from, and lift us a above, previous-semi-optimal situations where we would encounter, and to arrive to, the typical proper (and sufficiently deep if needed) centre image, and simultaneously suffer from image-quality around it (not much there in spaces other than centre, left and right), combined with some imaging glued to the panels/baffles, and then again not much at all coming from beyond this stereo pair.

We need even and realistic staging at all places in height, width, depth, far beyond the speaker's setup, and not just ONLY AT CENTRE, OR SPEAKER R/L. Instead, sound-staging should be also having depth on (far) left and right from centre (lets hear where instruments are in the full-out symphonic orchestra), with all awareness and notion leaving the speakers, and create something impressively beautiful and real, beyond its physical width, height etc in the setup. IF sound appears to come from the speaker, is it still considered to be a high-end situation? At 2022?

At some point we should start deciding not to take that compromise: instead, we should focus right now on speakers that simply throw a huge but correctly-sized sound stage equally represented at all spots and in all 3 XYZ directions, with all full-bodied threedimensional imaging in that vast stage we can create. So, also in big rooms and with the most demanding dimensional settings and without compromise, baffle size needs and height should be overcome by better point source offerings (which can be 1, 2, 3, 4 ways if implementing 100% time/phase coherence and overcoming architectural and synergetic difficulties). Shape, drivers, filters are all more important than cabinet-size. Being able to sound big with smaller physical dimensions, will only benefit Sound Stage size, rather than limit it. BUT, about height: even the best "small" speaker with very good sound stage properties will kind-off suck if the acoustic centre mid/high will not be positioned higher than the listener's ear. The full "being there" experience needs the acoustic centre mid/high sections the be ABOVE the height of its ears. No compromise possible here. lets go emotional, lets go realistic, and lets go live in reproduction, then as a listener the only thing left to do is to get goose-bumps.

 

[tima]

Being able to sound big with smaller physical dimensions, will only benefit Sound Stage size, rather than limit it. BUT, about height: even the best "small" speaker with very good sound stage properties will kind-off suck if the acoustic centre mid/high will not be positioned higher than the listener's ear. The full "being there" experience needs the acoustic centre mid/high sections the be ABOVE the height of its ears. No compromise possible here. lets go emotional, lets go realistic, and lets go live in reproduction, then as a listener the only thing left to do is to get goose-bumps.

I enjoyed reading your post and agree with much of what you wrote. I will add that recorded information informs the soundstage which should vary with the recording rather than having a one soundstage size fits all recording.

 

[morricab]

Conclusion:

Speaking of speakers that all have their size-independent time/phase/filter/baffle issues: Bigger speakers often sound bigger, and reproduce sound stages that are then also bigger, when compared to small speakers. So bigger here can be seen as one of the essential benefits for going for large units or panels if speaking about baffle surface. BUT, smaller top-tier speakers have the potential to throw a better and even FAR BIGGER sound stage than top-tier big speakers ever could, BECAUSE from a listener's point of view/hearing, they will not be 'gluing' so much acoustic energy to to their physical surfaces. This leads to a potentially much airier, more effortless, more genuine and more emotionally receptive type of musical reproduction. Small size, with the rest beinge equal, make it potentially much easier, rather than harder, to reach best-level soundstaging, if these smaller speakers are of the right top-notch soundstage-pedigree.

Going for modern phase/time aligned and coherent multi-ways in the league most fitting to our best-level-needs and interests, performance might actually save us from, and lift us a above, previous-semi-optimal situations where we would encounter, and to arrive to, the typical proper (and sufficiently deep if needed) centre image, and simultaneously suffer from image-quality around it (not much there in spaces other than centre, left and right), combined with some imaging glued to the panels/baffles, and then again not much at all coming from beyond this stereo pair.

We need even and realistic staging at all places in height, width, depth, far beyond the speaker's setup, and not just ONLY AT CENTRE, OR SPEAKER R/L. Instead, sound-staging should be also having depth on (far) left and right from centre (lets hear where instruments are in the full-out symphonic orchestra), with all awareness and notion leaving the speakers, and create something impressively beautiful and real, beyond its physical width, height etc in the setup. IF sound appears to come from the speaker, is it still considered to be a high-end situation? At 2022?

At some point we should start deciding not to take that compromise: instead, we should focus right now on speakers that simply throw a huge but correctly-sized sound stage equally represented at all spots and in all 3 XYZ directions, with all full-bodied threedimensional imaging in that vast stage we can create. So, also in big rooms and with the most demanding dimensional settings and without compromise, baffle size needs and height should be overcome by better point source offerings (which can be 1, 2, 3, 4 ways if implementing 100% time/phase coherence and overcoming architectural and synergetic difficulties). Shape, drivers, filters are all more important than cabinet-size. Being able to sound big with smaller physical dimensions, will only benefit Sound Stage size, rather than limit it. BUT, about height: even the best "small" speaker with very good sound stage properties will kind-off suck if the acoustic centre mid/high will not be positioned higher than the listener's ear. The full "being there" experience needs the acoustic centre mid/high sections the be ABOVE the height of its ears. No compromise possible here. lets go emotional, lets go realistic, and lets go live in reproduction, then as a listener the only thing left to do is to get goose-bumps.

I think your analysis is interesting and probably a lot of truth…for box speakers. I don’t think it applies well to planar and dipole speakers.

 

[SeagoatLeo]

I can give you a very recent example I had of a soundstage degradation (total collapse is perhaps too strong).

A friend of mine has a Nagra Classic DAC (SS output) that he brought over to my place when he first got it. My system being all tube with SET amp, tube preamp and Tube output DAC does image dimensionality and soundstage depth quite well. We inserted the Nagra DAC and within seconds it was clear that image 3d essentially evaporated and now we had flat images upon a soundstage that, while not completely flat, was foreshortened by a significant amount. Was it unlistenable? No, of course not and if I had not already been for a long time immersed in a fully 3d soundfield I might not have even noticed it. But notice it I did with seconds of the music playing and once heard could not be unheard.

IMO, this was a dramatic difference in soundstage/imaging that I would not be able to live with. FWIW, the owner also heard it in contrast to my setup and sold the DAC as he was then dissatisfied.

You mean to tell me you have never experienced a dramatic difference between day and night listening sometimes? Maybe you have perfect power (or terrible power) at all hours so there is no change but at my place this can be drastic...in addition to the examples I gave in another post around power dependence at shows.

By mechanistic I meant that you are seeing the problem all in the speaker dispersion/phase and room reflections...these primarily mechanical waveform issues and the timing of those waveforms.

I have experimented heavily with ALL types of loudspeakers, conventional box, various horns and lots of planars (electrostatic, planar magnetic, etc.) and was able to get good imaging and soundstage out of most, although the best were probably the big full-range electrostats.

We can agree on the low excursion, sensitivity drivers as I have two systems, one with 97db and the other 99db sensitivities...both are back horn loaded two-way systems and I get very good soundstage from both...but it can be easily destroyed from poor gear choice.

As an Aries Cerat importer, I know the products well and that he was not satisfied with the state of electronics out there, which is why he designed his own to complement his speakers.

I totally agree. I have the COS Engineering D1v DAC which measured great, fabulous construction and excellent design. However, it lacks depth. My new DAC (an extremely modified Benchmark HDR-1) sounds at least as good as my neighbor's Meridian Ultradac and has really spacious sound and depth. Even my Kyocera 310x CD player has a bit more depth than the D1v (but lacks it's bass and treble extension and resolution).

 

[Manos_Bits]

Based on my auditioning experience I have found that I like tall loudspeakers, because I find that height contributes to realistic soundstage scale and a more authentic reproduction of the size and grandeur of a classical symphony orchestra. This is why I like tall systems like Evolution Acoustics MM7 and Rockport Arrakis and Wilson XVX and Gryphon Pendragon/Kodo and Von Schweikert Ultra 11 and YG Sonja XV, etc.

Kedar disagrees, and argues that tall speakers artificially generate a sense of size and scale regardless of whether such ambient information is actually encoded on the recording. In his view – – and, Kedar, you should correct me straightaway if I am mis-stating your view here – – a small speaker, such as the wonderfully musical DeVore O96, more accurately channels the actual ambient acoustic soundstage information, if any, which is in the recording. He feels that the small speaker is more accurate in the sense that it will generate or not generate only the ambient information which is actually encoded in the recording, and not automatically scale up to large size every recording.

This contrasts with the tall speaker which automatically scales up and homogenizes every recording, whether there is authentic ambient large soundstage information encoded in the recording or not.

What do you think?

All of the above mentioned speakers are correctly designed independently of how they sound.. except two: the Wilson XVX and the YG Sonja XV.. WHY?? because the high frequency source is put wrongly quite high on both!! HF are strictly directional and must fit the physical audition's position.. otherwise the heights come from the 'sky' while the rest of music comes physically lower.. NO directional technic of the HF source (like this used in Wilsons) can correct this error!! because even if the source can change directivity the point of the source does NOT change!!

Let's understand this with simple life physics.. Consider we are sit on a middle of a plaza where a 10 level building exists at the plaza's end.. in each of the 10 levels there are balconies where little children (HF) sing.. if we close our eyes (or not) the sound of the kids from the 5th floor will be heard from the 5th floor regardless of whether the kids are singing looking straight ahead, they bent heads down or they rise the heads up!! the same happens with all other level's sources!! This 'anomaly' is getting more obvious as we move closer to the building and more acceptable as we move back, because the HF source angle is lower..

So, those kinds of designs like Wilson XVX and the YG Sonja XV can be heard correctly only in very big rooms where the HF angle can be smoother.. But generally this in NOT a correct sound design NOR an acceptable technique.. the High Frequency sources are put in high altitude only in PA systems so the sound cannot be blocked from the bodies and everyone can hear.. in our home systems the HF source must be in the same level with our ears in the audition's position.. I am writing all those things based on my Professional PA (and Hi-End) background and also the many times auditioned the monsters Wilson Alexandrias III where on listening Rolling Stones Susie Q the whole music comes 'naturally' and the drum's cowbell comes from the balcony high!!

 

[SeagoatLeo]

All of the above mentioned speakers are correctly designed independently of how they sound.. except two: the Wilson XVX and the YG Sonja XV.. WHY?? because the high frequency source is put wrongly quite high on both!! HF are strictly directional and must fit the physical audition's position.. otherwise the heights come from the 'sky' while the rest of music comes physically lower.. NO directional technic of the HF source (like this used in Wilsons) can correct this error!! because even if the source can change directivity the point of the source does NOT change!!

Let's understand this with simple life physics.. Consider we are sit on a middle of a plaza where a 10 level building exists at the plaza's end.. in each of the 10 levels there are balconies where little children (HF) sing.. if we close our eyes (or not) the sound of the kids from the 5th floor will be heard from the 5th floor regardless of whether the kids are singing looking straight ahead, they bent heads down or they rise the heads up!! the same happens with all other level's sources!! This 'anomaly' is getting more obvious as we move closer to the building and more acceptable as we move back, because the HF source angle is lower..

So, those kinds of designs like Wilson XVX and the YG Sonja XV can be heard correctly only in very big rooms where the HF angle can be smoother.. But generally this in NOT a correct sound design NOR an acceptable technique.. the High Frequency sources are put in high altitude only in PA systems so the sound cannot be blocked from the bodies and everyone can hear.. in our home systems the HF source must be in the same level with our ears in the audition's position.. I am writing all those things based on my Professional PA (and Hi-End) background and also the many times auditioned the monsters Wilson Alexandrias III where on listening Rolling Stones Susie Q the whole music comes 'naturally' and the drum's cowbell comes from the balcony high!!

My neighbor/friend took his YG Sonja 2.3s and had them dismembered. He said the tweeter was placed to high. He took the bass module and mid-high module and had them refinished to stand separately. Now the tweeter is just above ear level not up in the air. Sounds great too!

 

[Manos_Bits]

My neighbor/friend took his YG Sonja 2.3s and had them dismembered. He said the tweeter was placed to high. He took the bass module and mid-high module and had them refinished to stand separately. Now the tweeter is just above ear level not up in the air. Sounds great too!

despite where the HF is put I never liked the sound of Wilsons and YG acoustics.. sorry fellows..

 

[Ron Resnick]

I, personally, do not understand at all this comment that the tweeter in the XVX is located physically too high. In theory, at least, I like the D’Appolito (midrange-tweeter-midrange) design, but implementation trumps theory, in my opinion. At proper listening distance I hear no problem with the XVX tweeter.

On the small speaker discussion, the one thing that I cannot hear from a small speaker is “effortlessness.” To my ears it is suboptimal to be pushing the majority of the sound of an entire symphony orchestra out of a single 6 inch or an 8 inch cone.

 

[chuck]

So, those kinds of designs like Wilson XVX and the YG Sonja XV can be heard correctly only in very big rooms where the HF angle can be smoother.. But generally this in NOT a correct sound design NOR an acceptable technique..

It is sometimes fun to hear folks opine on great speakers they have never heard, pronouncing them wrongly designed, and then decreeing the rooms where they must be placed. If little speakers (shorter than about 45") could get the job done, I would own them and I have heard dozens of them. YG Sonja XVi can so that is what is in my 15x20 room. They play every kind of music far, far better than any small speakers I have heard.

 

[SeagoatLeo]

It is sometimes fun to hear folks opine on great speakers they have never heard, pronouncing them wrongly designed, and then decreeing the rooms where they must be placed. If little speakers (shorter than about 45") could get the job done, I would own them and I have heard dozens of them. YG Sonja XVi can so that is what is in my 15x20 room. They play every kind of music far, far better than any small speakers I have heard.

My neighbor's room is 20 X 20 with 10' ceilings. His YG Sonja 2.3 as modified sound great. However, I still prefer the immediacy I get out of my system despite the "lowly" Focus speakers. I plan to upgrade to Von Schweikert's which I prefer but at a steep cost. I doubt I would own Wilson or YG and certainly not Magico. I also contend that a full orchestra sounds best out of a larger system (multi-driver, big planar, etc) than a single driver system. My cable manufacturer friend built a pair of mini-monitors (1" Seas tweeter and 4.5" mid/woofer) and amazingly gets deep bass but when playing an orchestra, it just seems pushed out. Sounds lovely but it is compressed compared to a multi-driver/larger speaker system.

 

[Manos_Bits]

I, personally, do not understand at all this comment that the tweeter in the XVX is located physically too high. In theory, at least, I like the D’Appolito (midrange-tweeter-midrange) design, but implementation trumps theory, in my opinion. At proper listening distance I hear no problem with the XVX tweeter.

Most of the other speakers you mention do have d' appolito implementation but in the correct place..
I do like big speakers.. Big speakers have Big sound..

 

[Manos_Bits]

It is sometimes fun to hear folks opine on great speakers they have never heard, pronouncing them wrongly designed, and then decreeing the rooms where they must be placed.......

the folks that imagine instead of search and learning have much more fun..

 

[SeagoatLeo]

My next/last speaker I intend to purchase is a Von Schweikert, rebuilt VR9SE mkII. The speaker which I have not heard is the Ultra 7 which would fit ideally into my system (I've heard the Ultra 9 and 11) but would require a big boost in income. VS recommend a future upgraded E-5 speaker which is cheaper and smaller than the Ultra 11 but similar in design. I will not be purchasing a two way or less, or a planar or electrostat (had 5 in 20 years prior to 2002) or baffle less speaker. I want to maintain a big sound that can play efficiently and quietly as well in a medium sized custom listening room 20' X 15' X 10'. I do wonder about the AquoAudio https://www.aequoaudio.com/loudspeakers which are efficient, small and lightweight but which has had superlative reviews with no negative comment. I have not heard them. How can I compare them to Von Schweikert speakers?

 

[Ivo]

I enjoyed reading your post and agree with much of what you wrote. I will add that recorded information informs the soundstage which should vary with the recording rather than having a one soundstage size fits all recording.

Thank you. And your addition is fully true, however my remarks can be seen as an avarage for the typical quality range of productions, and even as a more general always-applicable technical context. The posts below will perhaps make this easier to comprehend.