You may not have heard a good MBL demo because I would say that imaging and space rendition are strong suits of the speaker (in this case perhaps even if it's not on the recording...in that respect it could be a bit manufactured from the omindirectionality). I have not heard out of proportion performers with MBL (but have with poorly setup Avantgarde Trios). What is not, IMO, is the tonality (I consistently hear a metallic edge with them) and their never ending thirst for watts. The largest ones can do dynamics pretty good (but then they are a huge speaker so they should) if you can put a few kilowatts into them. The smaller ones are dynamically limited, IMO.
Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
You may not have heard a good MBL demo because I would say that imaging and space rendition are strong suits of the speaker (in this case perhaps even if it's not on the recording...in that respect it could be a bit manufactured from the omindirectionality). I have not heard out of proportion performers with MBL (but have with poorly setup Avantgarde Trios). What is not, IMO, is the tonality (I consistently hear a metallic edge with them) and their never ending thirst for watts. The largest ones can do dynamics pretty good (but then they are a huge speaker so they should) if you can put a few kilowatts into them. The smaller ones are dynamically limited, IMO.
Tom, this thread, started by me about my own system, is my blog describing what I am doing and what I am hearing. It is also about what I listen to and the music I like. System threads are personal that way. Occasionally, visitors will also share their listening impressions in these pages. Some of my visitors listen to my gear and the "sound" and criticise things. Others come here to enjoy the music.
Threads like these are what I like about WBF. I do not wonder whether or not audiophiles actually listen to music or to their gear. It is clear to me that most do a bit of each, but everyone is different. Does it really matter? People make their own choices and I would presume they do so willingly and for their own enjoyment.
Pretty funny Mike. I am in no way trying to "cancel" your preference for imaging from your system. That seems to be an absurd response to or observation of what I have written about my system and what I am trying to do. I like some imaging too, and soundstage information, and hall ambiance, as long as it is being faithfully represented by the system and it is on the recording, and not an artifact obviously enhanced, or manipulated by the gear. It must also be convincing and natural sounding by reminding me of what I hear when listening to live music.
ddk's goal and thoughts about "natural" sounding systems and how to achieve them seem to have stirred quite a debate. This thread is my personal system thread in which I share my thoughts about what I am doing, and why I am doing them, to those interested in reading them.
I find it fascinating that people who are not interested in these observations or in the direction I am going feel comfortable expressing their different opinions in my system thread. I welcome them, surely, but am curious that the discussions are taking place here rather than in new dedicated threads on the specific topics.
Last edited:
Dan you are welcome to comment, but why not start a thread on the subject? Do you honestly feel as though I am trying to "cancel" your opinion? What does that even mean, BTW?
Fransisco, this is not it at all. Listening to a concert is a completely different experience from listening to one's system. Watching the performers live is a wonderful thing, and a big part of the live experience. I am talking about the sound of music, live and reproduced, not all of the other things brought to the experience of listening live. My goal is to reproduce the "sound" and emotional pleasure of listening to music from my audio system. The closer it comes to reminding me of what I HEAR at a live concert, the better. I am not interested in what I SEE at a live concert being reproduced from my system. I am not interested in a video of the performance. I want the sound to be convincing so that my mind can go where it goes and not be distracted by enhanced imaging which sounds unnatural to me.
Listening with my eyes closed, which I do for short durations while sitting in front of my system and at a live venue is simply a method to focus more intensely, and be less distracted by the visual, to the actual sound of what I am hearing. It is a technique I use to better understand the sound of what I am hearing. It is a tool, and nothing more.
Last edited:
I think this discussion of natural vs unnatural is a bit misleading. Trying to reproduce a recording in a domestic room has its challenges. It would appear that you have chosen a mix of reflected sound with the reduced treble output of a straight forward speaker setup. Nothing wrong with your setup. Pin point imaging is more a product of the recording.
Good recordings give you a large sound bubble with a lot of things happening inside .
Especially good tape recordings
Especially good tape recordings
Dan, actually, I am not sure the treble output is much reduced, nor are the reflections much increased. I had the speakers much further apart when they there was more toe in. They were also closer to the side walls which caused the reflections to behave differently. The listener to tweeter angle is not that different now. It is the way the energy in the room is managed that is different. I also got rid of a lot of high frequency absorption panels at the reflection points and low frequency absorption at the room corners. The differences are not as simple and straight forward as you suggest.
A local friend of mine was also told me the same thing that you are suggesting, but the reality is somewhat different. The result to my ears, and to some of those of visitors who have also heard the changes, is a sound that is more convincing, more enjoyable, and more natural or reminiscent of what we hear live. Interestingly, there is also seemingly more resolution and ambient hall information as captured on some recordings.
This stuff is all interactive, and the resulting sound from these changes, at least in my room with my gear, does not seem as predictable as people seem to presume.
I think @Tango described this as a glass bubble or looking glass in a post in his system thread. Lots of details and impressive information, but observed from outside at a distance. The effect is that one is removed from the performance and simply an observer rather than one having a more intimate connection to the music. At least that is my impression of what Tang was trying to get across.
I think if you get a bit of the feeling of what the artists/musicians want to convey with their music its great.
Its the highest goal in reproduction imo ,call it natural authentic whatever .
Its the highest goal in reproduction imo ,call it natural authentic whatever .
I am in agreement that you have moved towards a more optimized setup. By keeping your speakers further from the front and side walls you have delayed the reflection. The Q3 is a well engineered speaker. By sitting closer you are still receiving the benefits of the design. The tweeter being more off axis is likely just the right amount of reduction in treble energy. I think I'm more in agreement with the direction you have taken. You are so right with comments regarding hearing your system being worth much more. If I could listen to your setup I might be trying to do the same. I do feel the imaging discussion has strayed a bit far from focusing on your system journey.
glad you thought it was funny.
this is not about only what you write.
there is a tipping point between preferences and assigning negative connotations to things. you might navigate the tipping point successfully. but.....some might support and double down on your points, which you are comfortable with on your thread. but......this might cause that tipping point to where some react. not realistic to want the reactions to those things to occur on some other thread. relevance is right here.
sorry if my post caused you distress.
No distress Mike. I thought your comment was funny because I don’t see the relevance to the cancel culture at all. I don’t see anyone telling you that you can’t enjoy your presumably precise imaging. I’m describing what I prefer and what I hear in my system and what I’m trying to do by discussing it in my system thread.
I’m sorry you feel as though we’re talking about your response to your system. I don’t in any we try to equate what I am doing here with what you are doing there. We may or may not have completely different goals I have no idea. Please rest assured that my comments are not directed at you and your system. That is certainly not my intention and I’m sorry that you interpreted my comments in that way.
I’m sorry you feel as though we’re talking about your response to your system. I don’t in any we try to equate what I am doing here with what you are doing there. We may or may not have completely different goals I have no idea. Please rest assured that my comments are not directed at you and your system. That is certainly not my intention and I’m sorry that you interpreted my comments in that way.
Last edited:
There seems to be a good deal of oversimplification in this thread. We should keep in mind that the reproduction at home can provide spectacular soundstage, imaging, depth and hall information only if that's the information captured by the microphones by the engineer. We are not listening to the hall or the stage or a player or players. We are listening to a mic feed. There are so many techniques from Decca tree to multi mic that there are no rules as to what we should or will hear at home regarding the parameters being discussed.
Moreover, what you hear in a hall is extremely dependent on where you are at; section, row and seat. You cannot tell me there is no pinpoint imaging in Box H at Chicago Symphony Hall. It's also there from the M box at Powell Hall in St. Louis. It's there in spades. If the violinist in the 3rd row of the 2nd violin section farts, you know exactly who it was. I've also had a good imaging experience ar Barbican. At Carnegie, this sort of imaging can be found in the first or second tier boxes but it does not exist in the balcony, which has been considered by many to have the best sound in the hall even though the imaging is very imprecise.
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-sound-at-carnegie-hall.20911/#post-400378
Nor can you get this sort of precise imaging from any seat I could find at the Grand Hall (a gorgeous sounding shoe-box design) with the St. Petersburg Philharmonic or in general, from orchestra seats at Meyerson Symphony Hall in Dallas (but you can in Bass Hall in Ft. Worth). And at David Geffen Hall (formerly Avery Fisher), fuggetabout it. You can't get that sound anywhere in the hall even if you stood on your head. Rows N-S in the orchestra is about the best you can do, but it's a far cry from "exact imaging". I swear sometimes I think the sound from the men's room is the best sound you can get from the NY Phil (OK, that's a stretch, but not by much!)
So the venue and seat location matters. So does what the engineer wants you to hear as it is captured by his/her microphones.
To summarize, these are some hall impressions, but there are so many possibilities as to make generalizations about imaging from both live venues and recorded mediums largely meaningless. Specifics, sure. But generalizations, not really.
Apologies to Peter for some thread diversion, but I'm just replying to Al's comment.
Last edited:
nothing to be sorry about. and nothing i took personal. nothing. in fact, the only issue is your concern about what is written in your thread.
my gentle comment was mostly made 'to be funny' with just a bit of 'on target' too. like a spit ball purposely sent in the back of the classroom. no wounds, just irritating.
Marc I’d defend against any action that included throwing your speakers in the creek, I’m an ecological conservationist first and a gear critic second
If Peter hadn't arranged the tweeters on axis previously, and has toed out while moving the speakers closer together, then treble response could be similar now as previously. Bigger differences may be expected in the diffuseness of images, and room acoustics. It's no surprise to me that more ambient recording cues such as hall reverb are now audible in the absence of the 'wall tampons' or panels that were removed. I've tried that same experiment and no longer like much room treatment except dead center behind the speakers. I think the room full of furniture is enough in my case as in Peter's. I'm going to try a bit of toe out eventually, too. I'm currently sitting on axis and like the sound, though. It's not pinpoint, but it's not life-like diffuse either. I caught a guitar, sax duo a few weeks ago on the beach and remember thinking "that sax just sounds ginormous compared to my system at home.". I'm not in 100% agreement that toe out doesn't add coloration of its own, however. I'm a bit more in the "it's a function of the recording" camp with regards to imaging characteristics. Toeing out a set of speakers designed to be (and measured) on-axis in order to change the result based on personal preference is certainly anyone's prerogative. But I do think there are generally side effects. Off axis response deviation just being one.
This gets to the heart of it Peter. Our perceptions are slippery things, they flick between all kinds of appreciations in short, sharp changes and the whole time we’re tricked into believing we’re just listening to what is being heard in an even and linear and chronological way. We are restless things at times. It is always great the way a listening experience unfolds and when you are listening with someone else and they are clearly taking their cues from completely different focal points than you are it really brings that home.
It’s good the way the commentary here often explores the nature of what is heard and how it is heard and experienced. Championing a non judgemental position on what people perceive and so what we are being fed in the listening is the best position... it’s all fine as long as we are being nourished by how we listen.
It is personal. I am a music first listener and now just problem solve to take out anything that makes me concentrate too long on too much else in the system including the essential nature of the system. A holistic call becomes easier if none too strained by the tension of trying to grasp it with any exactness.
In the end I just like to be quietly seated in the music... to start and finish there, this is the way it happens now and its only when it doesn’t that I’ll start looking around at the system to work out what is doing it... so restlessness and curiosity are an essential significator for something not yet right also... but then just sometimes the mind will do what the mind will do... especially at our ages lol
Last edited:
Thank you Jeffrey- I very much appreciate what you wrote. The LL2.1D is a real sweetheart. It was my first experience with Lamm gear. Imo, you are right about it being fatigue free - so easy to listen for hours, it doesn't call attention to itself.
Similar threads
