Thinking about realism in reproduction again

[DaveC]

I have now read the full article. HP text was supposed to be an essay on the role of dynamics, mainly in the key "lets us suppose that (...) than we could consider that (...) ", but the perspective was mainly centered on electronics. IMHO you are quoting a part that was supposed to mainly address the "first watt" to support a point on speaker preference. We can also consider that the limitation of low sensitivity speakers is that the amplifiers adequate to use them miss the so called "the first watt", no way we can be sure that the limitation in dynamics is intrinsic to low sensitivity speakers.

For example, old Magico speakers were low sensitivity. However one of more dynamic sounds I have ever listened to was the classic M5 coupled to the DartZeel monoblocks delivering almost 1000W at peaks, with great microdynamics and extraordinary realism.

I think that modern amplifiers (and digital sources) will oblige us to take a fresh look at the problem of speaker dynamics.

I agree... while I still prefer higher efficiency and SET amps it's true that the best cone 'n dome speakers are quite good. Wilson's XLF setup at RMAF a few years ago was great, TAD has been excellent and many others. I think conventional speakers are converging and are much closer to one another than in the past. One of my biggest issues is I've still never heard a truly great dome or ribbon tweeter though... my speakers have the TAD Be dome which is probably the best (imo) and it's not as good as my extended range mid + CD horn tweeter.

It's hard to ignore the recording when talking about dynamics though, I've heard an uncompressed recording of a drum set on large line arrays and still remember that as far more live sounding than most anything else I've heard. Most systems aren't capable of producing such wide dynamic swings though, so compression. I know dynamic range expanders exist but never tried one...

 

[Al M.]

I can attest to extraordinary dynamics in my old Magico Mini IIs as well, even though their frequency range is somewhat restricted.

I can attest to your speakers as well. Both excellent macro- and micro-dynamics.

Low-sensitivity speakers, but lots of amplifier power behind them in your system.

 

[KeithR]

Thanks Brad for the thoughts - I was thinking (and going to write a post) about this topic after a recent Magnepan 3.7i demo at a local dealer. Almost embarrassingly for an audiophile, I had never heard a proper setup (Maggie has lame show demos for one, but I digress).

I came away thinking I can't fault anyone for owning Maggies - they make many box speakers sound broken and the level of transparency/coherency reveal many flaws in others. Bass is perhaps the fastest I've heard and fills the room vs. being 1 note from a woofer off the floor. At their retail prices, *very* hard to argue for better value. I did prefer this demo to electrostats, where when the bass comes down hard I literally can point to the driver.

However, dynamics weren't even remotely close to my higher than average, but not high efficient 91.5db Devores at home. And this was on 600 watt Mac monos. The Magnepan therefore is a huge dilemma to me. In non-box speaker land, I've come to conclusion I'd prefer to deal with horns and some of their idiosyncrasies than planars - especially now that DSP can mitigate coherency issues.

Now I know Bonzo is going to chime in and say I need to hear restored Apogees, but that process isn't my cup of tea to begin with. I was very greatful to finally have this demo and loved, almost was beguiled by many parts of the 3.7i performance - but ultimately weren't for me.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes but that's like listening to one cone, and generalizing all cones are like that. Or listening to one TT set up and generalizing for vinyl. Loads of difference between Maggie and Apogees. But the one note bass about cones was an accurate observation (accurate actually auto corrected itself to acoustats)

Not to mention that each horn is very different.

 

[DaveC]

Yes but that's like listening to one cone, and generalizing all cones are like that. Or listening to one TT set up and generalizing for vinyl. Loads of difference between Maggie and Apogees. But the one note bass about cones was an accurate observation (accurate actually auto corrected itself to acoustats)

Not to mention that each horn is very different.

So woofers all sound the same but other stuff can be very different from one another?

 

[cjfrbw]

I partially bridge the dynamics gap of planars using the distributed speaker system, with bass crossed over to subwoofers and with ambience generation/surround speakers. DSP is applied to the surrounds and the subwoofer system only.

The planars are the main imagers for first arrival sound and some stage effects to the extent the stage effects are in the recording.

It is a more dynamic presentation than standard stereo through the planars and avoids the throaty effects of horns. It can also be switched off with the flick of a button on the remote to yield standard stereo, or stereo without subwoofers. Horns depend on the compression reflections of the horn mouth, and I can't see that an ambience scheme is any worse than that.

That being said, my second choice of speaker systems would be a horn system rather than a dynamic system.

The HP compression stuff seems to be about components such as preamps and amps not generating fully open, fluid dynamics. I think of some push pull amps, both tube and SS, compressing the zone from about 800 to 2KHZ when I think of that.

I did an experiment when I had my Apogee Stages with passive crossover. I had an inexpensive 805 based Chinese SET 50 watt at the same time I had VTL 450 monoblocks. I put the VTLs in triode mode on one channel, the SET on the other channel, and equalized the volumes. I could go back and forth from the "VTL" image to the "SET" image. The openness and fluidity of the dynamics on the much lower powered SET and the relatively crabbed upper midrange sound of the VTL are what convinced me to endeavor to get SETs in my setup.

Most standard recordings have studio mixdown-generated compression of some kind, and combining that with stereo components that may have their own variable compressions I would think have the potential to create wonky sounding results.

A stereo system that can reproduce an uncompressed recording with the lowest sounds easily parsed and perceived, ramping up to rapid and explosive 120db peaks, without sounding wrong at all, is going to be big, expensive, and rare.

 

[bonzo75]

So woofers all sound the same but other stuff can be very different from one another?

To establish either way, one needs a sufficient sample size

 

[KeithR]

Yes but that's like listening to one cone, and generalizing all cones are like that. Or listening to one TT set up and generalizing for vinyl. Loads of difference between Maggie and Apogees. But the one note bass about cones was an accurate observation (accurate actually auto corrected itself to acoustats)

Not to mention that each horn is very different.

Sure, but how many planars are available new on the market - it's basically Magnepan and in stat-land, Martin Logan. I will get to hear Analysis Audio at LAAS in June though.

 

[bonzo75]

Sure, but how many planars are available new on the market - it's basically Magnepan and in stat-land, Martin Logan. I will get to hear Analysis Audio at LAAS in June though.

AA much more refined than Maggie's and better bass. But made more for vocals and chamber, while she's also rock, do electronica, and slam on orchestral. AA more laid back than apogee, easier to drive.

I consider refurbed Apogees new speakers...without any distribution, marketing, and hifi show markups...

 

[Folsom]

A stereo system that can reproduce an uncompressed recording with the lowest sounds easily parsed and perceived, ramping up to rapid and explosive 120db peaks, without sounding wrong at all, is going to be big, expensive, and rare.

That's really not what dynamics for realism are about in anyway what so ever, when we're talking about the presentation of changing dynamic qualities instead of quantity. But what you describe has its own virtues, to have spl levels that are close. I personally don't specifically desire loudness, but dynamics are paramount.

 

[morricab]

I agree... while I still prefer higher efficiency and SET amps it's true that the best cone 'n dome speakers are quite good. Wilson's XLF setup at RMAF a few years ago was great, TAD has been excellent and many others. I think conventional speakers are converging and are much closer to one another than in the past. One of my biggest issues is I've still never heard a truly great dome or ribbon tweeter though... my speakers have the TAD Be dome which is probably the best (imo) and it's not as good as my extended range mid + CD horn tweeter.

It's hard to ignore the recording when talking about dynamics though, I've heard an uncompressed recording of a drum set on large line arrays and still remember that as far more live sounding than most anything else I've heard. Most systems aren't capable of producing such wide dynamic swings though, so compression. I know dynamic range expanders exist but never tried one...

I would agree that box "cone&dome" speakers with well above average sensitivity (say 92db+) have a liveliness and seeming lack of compression that helps, particularly, with micro dynamics and for them to not sound so bland. Big Wilsons and Focals are a good example, with sensitivities in the 92-95db range. Wilsons have never been one of the most tonally neutral box speakers from a FR POV. Flatness of response doesn't seem to be a big Dave Wilson priority. What they do well is dynamics and distortion. They have low cabinet talk, low driver talk, low distortion from the motors of the drivers and relatively high sensitivity so they capture the micro pretty well. They have big driver surface area so they capture the macro quite well without compression. The FR is acceptable with no gross anomalies but it is far from Magico flat.

So, while a big Wilson or Focal can get near horn like dynamics it is also a presentation of the sound difference. Horns are more directional and tend to put the sound more out in front with an expanding bubble, while box speakers tend to have the images at the plane of the speaker or behind. I think preference for the presentation plays a part here.

The best I have heard from relatively compact speakers in this regard is Reference 3a and the little Odeon Orfeos I had a few years ago. My current "downstairs" speakers, the Odeon Rigoletto, are also quite lively with little power (93db/watt) and are what I would consider compact, being no bigger than a monitor on a stand.

I do not agree that box speakers with 86 or 87db and 4 ohm load (meaning they are really less sensitive) can get out of their own way and serve up convincing dynamics...micro or macro. They work best with compressed pop/rock where a good steady volume from low 80s to low 90s db is easy to maintain. The problem is that they just won't respond well to small inputs and so "gloss over" small details and they "round off" big transients as they compress. All the power in world doesn't fix this. From what I have heard from Magico (I have heard Q1, S5, Q3, Q5 and M5) they mostly fall into this category and I don't hear big dynamics here and things are, well, kind of bland compared to other, more sensitive, speakers. Of course I have mostly heard them with Soulution amps, which I detest. The best I heard from the above was the M5 with Spectral gear (DMA-360 monos), which was not bad at all but with unfamiliar music it was hard to be definitive.

Ribbons also need to be "woken up" to sound their best but then they run into dynamic limitations on the macro dynamic end ...unless they are very large or played at pretty moderate volume levels. Electrostats are a bit different in that they usually "wake up" at very low levels (even better than a lot of horns I have heard) so the microdynamics are well preserved despite the low voltage sensitivity; however, they run out of macrodynamic steam pretty early... unless they are huge and then they have pretty good headroom (my huge Acoustats covered the full dynamic envelope nearly as good as horns but the presentation was different). Problem is that horns generally need to be big as well...even if folded.

As for electronics, I have long felt that many SS amps and some tube amps that were using quite a lot of feedback sounded "compressed" like you felt the need to turn up the volume to get the sound to come out. This was an overall sensation and not so much what HP was referring to as a means to give a piece of gear it's "character" but I could imagine that being possible in addition to distortion considerations.

 

[morricab]

I partially bridge the dynamics gap of planars using the distributed speaker system, with bass crossed over to subwoofers and with ambience generation/surround speakers. DSP is applied to the surrounds and the subwoofer system only.

The planars are the main imagers for first arrival sound and some stage effects to the extent the stage effects are in the recording.

It is a more dynamic presentation than standard stereo through the planars and avoids the throaty effects of horns. It can also be switched off with the flick of a button on the remote to yield standard stereo, or stereo without subwoofers. Horns depend on the compression reflections of the horn mouth, and I can't see that an ambience scheme is any worse than that.

That being said, my second choice of speaker systems would be a horn system rather than a dynamic system.

The HP compression stuff seems to be about components such as preamps and amps not generating fully open, fluid dynamics. I think of some push pull amps, both tube and SS, compressing the zone from about 800 to 2KHZ when I think of that.

I did an experiment when I had my Apogee Stages with passive crossover. I had an inexpensive 805 based Chinese SET 50 watt at the same time I had VTL 450 monoblocks. I put the VTLs in triode mode on one channel, the SET on the other channel, and equalized the volumes. I could go back and forth from the "VTL" image to the "SET" image. The openness and fluidity of the dynamics on the much lower powered SET and the relatively crabbed upper midrange sound of the VTL are what convinced me to endeavor to get SETs in my setup.

Most standard recordings have studio mixdown-generated compression of some kind, and combining that with stereo components that may have their own variable compressions I would think have the potential to create wonky sounding results.

A stereo system that can reproduce an uncompressed recording with the lowest sounds easily parsed and perceived, ramping up to rapid and explosive 120db peaks, without sounding wrong at all, is going to be big, expensive, and rare.

Interesting system and for sure offloading the bass to subs helps with planar dynamics. Also, the active xover will help with losses normally incurred in the passive xover. I had the F25 and paired it with my own planar/hybrid that I designed around a BG Radia driver. Still have it in the cellar and maybe will set it up again one day...some of my friends thought it sounded better than my Acoustats. When I had two huge pairs of Acoustats (Spectra 2200s and Spectra 4400s) I used the 4400s as subwoofers...now that was killer and crossed it over around 80hz to the 2200s, which were a lot happier without having to do the bass. Never heard better subwoofers than a pair of 4400s...needless to say, the blending was a lot easier than mixing speaker technologies...

 

[Folsom]

You realize Wilson's are comprised of several non-high efficiency drivers to become efficient? Your argument makes no sense. While most of the time low efficiency speakers don't perform that well in my own personal experience, I've heard them do just that, with amazing dynamics. There might be some hard lined rules in audio but in general I don't subscribe to any that are just conjecture of experience.

 

[morricab]

You realize Wilson's are comprised of several non-high efficiency drivers to become efficient? Your argument makes no sense. While most of the time low efficiency speakers don't perform that well in my own personal experience, I've heard them do just that, with amazing dynamics. There might be some hard lined rules in audio but in general I don't subscribe to any that are just conjecture of experience.

Are the two different sized woofers in an X1/X2/XLF wired in parallel? If not, then each has to have a sensitivity at least as high as the overall system sensitivity. There is only 1 tweeter, so it must be at least as high as the overall system sensitivity. The only place I see where they are probably paralleled for sure is the midranges, which are in a kind of D'appolito config (although the crossover is probably not 3rd order like a true D'appolito).

Most insensitive speakers are also made up of mulitple drivers, obviously less sensitive than the ones Wilson is using...so it makes plenty of sense.

Are you suggesting that one driver with 94db sensitivity will be more responsive than two drivers at 91 db in parallel to microdynamic changes? I am assuming of course it is an 8 ohm 94db driver and two 16 ohm 91 db drivers, otherwise it would not be apples to apples. I have seen no real test on such a hypothesis. It may be possible I suppose but without some tests I would be hesitant to claim such.

 

[Folsom]

The virtues of a high efficiency driver and not universal to a speaker with multiple drivers. Only the efficiency is, but that doesn't make much sense for the theory unless the low single driver itself doesn't have a virtue and only the efficiency matters of a speaker.

 

[Robh3606]

Are you suggesting that one driver with 94db sensitivity will be more responsive than two drivers at 91 db in parallel to microdynamic changes?

Well you just doubled the surface area and power handling and reduced the excursion. You may even get some mutual coupling depending on frequency range and driver spacing that could boost the sensitivity by as much as another 3db. None of those in itself are negatives. Have to see what happens with the polar response as far as lobbing and nulls caused by the driver interference of them operating over the same range. So no easy answers.

Rob

 

[Atmasphere]

I just find the time lines odd David. Parallel or Push Pulls were the standard accompanying amplifiers in the 50s, the 3 or 8 Watters from you know who and their rivals were mated with the earlier horns of their same era. That's all. Maybe fad is the wrong word. Trend would be more appropriate. The trend of say 300Bs with say, VOTs or later big blue JBLs I notice is more an American and/or French trend. The Japanese typically use more power than that.

I didn't find that the article glorified anything at all and found it rather matter of factly. It concisely showed the evolution of both the media and the subsequent changes in the reproduction chain. I particularly liked how solutions came about over time as drivers evolved from field coils to fixed magnets, horn type to horn type, how standards were attempted by the council so on and so forth.

What I am trying to point out I guess is that I find the article quoted in the OP to be much too leading. A SET and a High Efficiency pairing does not automatically give one better sound. There's so much more to be considered. Sure the vintage gear loved today are fantastic. We have to remember however that they are still with us because they were fantastic then as they are now. They are the survivors and landfills are filled with their less worthy contemporaries. I think the sweeping generalities of the article belittle the effort, intelligence and artistry of those that made the greats.

I somewhat doubt that hp was talking strictly about SETs when he talked about triodes. About the time of this article we had been playing our MA-2s at his place, and our MA-1 had already been reviewed in the magazine. VAC was making triode amps as well as Melos (though the latter were pentodes wired in triode).

Sure, but how many planars are available new on the market - it's basically Magnepan and in stat-land, Martin Logan. I will get to hear Analysis Audio at LAAS in June though.

More stat-land players: Sound Lab, Quad, Audiostatic, King...

 

[cjfrbw]

One of the most dynamic presentations of Wilson Alexandrias I ever heard was at RMAF a few years ago. The quality of the demo pretty much dwarfed any other system at the show. It was a pretty large room with the newer Wilson subwoofers. It was very impressive.

However, it was a highly controlled demo. Nobody was waltzing over with their USB sticks or SACDs or CDs for a spin, and the music segments were pretty short with a lot of bloviating, velvet glove sales bullshit in between.

However, between "dynamic speaker" dynamics and horn dynamics, I still prefer the "tidal" dynamics of horns when they are set up well, rather than the "brute force" dynamics of "dynamic" speakers. At the same show, I heard a really crappy demo of Cesaro horns with studio tapes, they sounded bad to me. The horn systems were all over the map at that show from heavenly to extremely dismal, with some of the dismal ones being the most highly touted. I suppose that is the interesting thing about shows, they never fail to turn my expectations on their ear and tend to keep me humble.

 

[RogerD]

I somewhat doubt that hp was talking strictly about SETs when he talked about triodes. About the time of this article we had been playing our MA-2s at his place, and our MA-1 had already been reviewed in the magazine. VAC was making triode amps as well as Melos (though the latter were pentodes wired in triode).




More stat-land players: Sound Lab, Quad, Audiostatic, King...

I remember HP wrote a review of the VAC Renaissance 140 amplifier. At the time he said it reproduced music as he thought audio equipment should.

If you combine this "vividness" and presence with the dynamic "jump" the VACs have - assuming your phono stage does not suppress "jump" as the Klyne did to a disturbing degree - then you are likely to be, like me, bowled over, and stay that way. Time and time again, I forgot to take notes and just listened for the pleasure of it, a rarity for someone who has spent so much time listening professionally that he usually opts not to (with reproduced music anyway) during his off hours. Over and over, I found myself experiencing what J. Gordon Holt (only half-jokingly, I assume), calls the goosebump
factor, i.e., that degree of emotional involvement that, as Hayes himself puts it, reminds you of the first time you hear reproduced music as a child, "that old thrill" as he puts it of experiencing the music afresh, the same thrill one always get in the presence of a living orchestra. (This is not, sad to say, what I got from either the Manley or Melos "triodes", although the Melos/Pristine electrostatic combination did, with certain material, suggest some of this, albeit without much in the way of correct ambience retrieval.)

The experiencing of these amplifiers can be nearly overwhelming, at least for one used to reproduced sound that is both mechanical and/or more than faintly "electronic" in character.

http://www.vac-amps.com/Publication_TAS_Ren140.htm

I still have my 140's and a 70/70....one day I hope to build a system around them....revoiced to my specs.

 

[morricab]

I remember HP wrote a review of the VAC Renaissance 140 amplifier. At the time he said it reproduced music as he thought audio equipment should.



http://www.vac-amps.com/Publication_TAS_Ren140.htm

I still have my 140's and a 70/70....one day I hope to build a system around them....revoiced to my specs.

Had the VAC 30/30 mk iii. Very nice sounding amp. Probably the best PP amp I have ever owned.