Today a special listening

[PeterA]

I have found the bigger problem is the type of amplification used in the sub...I have had more difficulty blending Class D based subs than traditional Class A/B amps in the subs... Also, the proximity of the subs to the main speakers and how this affects the time/phase relationship is critical to get it singing together.

Is there a difference between front firing subs and those that fire downward when it comes to placement, the time/phase relationship and proper integration?

 

[bonzo75]

The best sub integration I heard was at Marty's when he had the pipedreams with DSP crossed over at 80. Haven't heard his passive with Wilson since. I also love the bass horns with trios. The other one is a DIY straight horn 2m long that ran from 800 to 80 and crossed over to sealed woofers at 80, passive. And a tapped horn, DIY, from floor to ceiling pillars that ran well below 20, active crossover

 

[PeterA]

I think there are several things being convoluted together here that I will try to unravel. First there should be no distinction or dichotomy between clarity and realism. The problem comes when you discuss real is "at what distance from the performers". The reason that this is important is that nearly all recordings are made up close...inlcuding large orchestral works. This means that real, sitting in the middle to rear of a hall, will never sound much like what is on a recording nor will it have the clarity that one regularly gets from good recordings. Even in the best halls it will still be lower than a good recording due to the reflections and losses from absoprtion and diffusion of the hall and people in the hall. Now, if you sit very close to the band or orchestra in a good hall you will have a very high degree of clarity.

IMO, the only live experiences that really truly qualify as references are those where you are close to the performers as would the microphones be on most recordings. This is especially true for unamplified performances. Most listening experiences at a distance are enjoyable but lack the impact of what can be deliverd live up close or from a great recording. I have only one recording in fact where I know for sure it was recorded at a distance. This is a recording given to me by the engineer himself so I have all details about it (it was taken at 6 meters distance from the orchestra and without compression and a minimal amound of equilization on a single stereo ribbon microphone). I have also made some recordings of solo violin, violin and piano, violin and cello and string quartet...all at close range (within 3 meters). Now, if all classical recordings were made in situ, meaning well into the auditorium (say middle center) then a more normal seating location for a live performance would likely translate better to what we hear on recordings. Recordings would also be less clear to some degree... but that is not what we get.

Some of the most striking performances I have heard have been chamber music where I was sitting very close to the performers. Those I take as mental reference when I listen to a piece of chamber music on my system. Only the above mentioned recording allows me some conception of how realistic my system sounds with large orchestra...most recordings and live don't translate becuase of hte stark difference in how you listen to an orchestra live vs. how they are recorded.

Realism and clarity don't necessarily have to go together because something can easily be live but not clear due to distance and environmental factors. That said, sitting up close and listening to a good recording of the same should provide a comparable experience live and recorded...if not the system in question has an issue.

Subwoofers can be well integrated but consideration for timing and phase are paramount...not the smoothness of the FR. IMO, two-way systems offer better integration compared to most multi-way but a small monitor cannot deliver the level of realism one gets sitting close to a Jazz band or string quartet...perhaps a solo voice or guitar but otherwise not really if we are honest with ourselves. I have been hesitant to go with more than a two-way horn because of the integration issues I have heard with most multi-way horns, which IMO robs realism. I have heard one that doesn't do this but it is unaffordable to me. However, I have found that my two-way horn delivers more impact and realism than nearly all multi-way cone/dome speakers I know and quite a bit more than monitor speakers like Reference 3a, which I know the sound of very well.

Morricab, thank you for articulating the importance of clarity and how it relates to realism in particular with reference to listener position in the audience and mic position in recordings. In my post I struggled when trying to describe the relationship between clarity and realism but you seem to explain it better. However, I am still a bit confused by your two statements which I highlighted. I agree with both statements and tried to reconcile them in my post but when reading your two similar statements, I still think some further discussion is needed.

Al seems to think that clarity and realism are distinct concepts when discussing reproduced music and favors realism if it comes at the expense of clarity in the context of adding a subwoofer. He and I disagree about this. See his post below:

(emphases added)

After re-reading your posts, Peter, I was struck again by your calls for clarity, and that often you find it impaired with subwoofer. I do agree that your room is a special case where a sub may simply not work. Yet in general I don't think you look at the issue the correct way. The question is not how 'clear' it sounds, but rather, how real it sounds (we have had this discussion before).

For example, you have raved about being able to precisely hear the plucking of the double bass on some recordings. Yet this can also be due to the lack of deep bass which turns the attention to what happens at higher frequencies -- an artifact. When I hear double bass live, more often than not I can not hear the plucking of the instrument clearly, precisely because the full-range envelope of timbre, which involves deep bass, does not allow you to hear that.

Knowing this, I do not start from the angle of greatest clarity. Rather, I dial in the sub for greatest realism, at least as I perceive it. It must not be audible as such (as a disjointed intrusion that is), and if in doubt I often dial it down one notch (and yes, I will concede I make mistakes here and there). However, once that is achieved, I take the clarity as what it is. That mostly also conforms more with my memories of live sound.

Another example to illustrate the point: in a concert hall with a lighter tonal balance some aspects of the music are more easily perceivable, it is more detailed as it were. Yet if the same music is played in a hall with a fuller acoustic and some of those details are less apparent, less 'clear', does that make it less real? Of course not, it is real music in a real space.

The hunt for 'clarity' is not the same as the hunt for realism. When the two go hand in hand, great; if there is a clash, I choose realism.

Of course, if the subwoofer obviously intrudes with its presence that is not how it should be. But if you tend to stop with dialing in of the sub at the slightest loss of 'clarity', and find the sound impaired because of that, even though it may be more real, it is obvious that you will constantly find 'trade-offs' and issues with sub 'integration' -- even when there are none.

The interesting thing is that Al and I both enjoy sitting up close when we listen to live music. This is generally the way mics capture the sound on the recording, and we used our memories of these experiences as references when we judge our system's performance. Up close, I hear clarity above all else. Of course, it is also real. That is why in this context, clarity and realism are the same and not distinct. Seated further away, they can be distinct because of the effect of the hall on perceived clarity. Recordings attempt to capture clarity, for the most part, so my goal is to reproduce what is on the recording which in theory lines up with my reference of listening to live music up close. Al and I have a friend in the Boston Audio Group who prefers to sit in the front center of the first balcony at Boston's Symphony Hall. Up and away over there, the sense of clarity is surely different, yet he uses live music as his reference and yet clarity, immediacy and articulation are paramount in his goals with his system. Audiophiles do not seem to agree about these concepts.

 

[PeterA]

The best sub integration I heard was at Marty's when he had the pipedreams with DSP crossed over at 80. Haven't heard his passive with Wilson since. I also love the bass horns with trios. The other one is a DIY straight horn 2m long that ran from 800 to 80 and crossed over to sealed woofers at 80, passive. And a tapped horn, DIY, from floor to ceiling pillars that ran well below 20, active crossover

Ked, I thought I read that you also thought MikeL's massive four driver sub towers were also extremely well integrated with his main speakers. That is a whole system concept though and perhaps not relevant in this sub integration discussion. Those main towers are not available separately, so in reality, the MM7 is a four tower speaker system having extremely low extension and coherence.

 

[bonzo75]

Hi yes though I wouldn't call them subs, they are part of the speaker

 

[Al M.]

Al seems to think that clarity and realism are distinct concepts when discussing reproduced music and favors realism if it comes at the expense of clarity in the context of adding a subwoofer. He and I disagree about this.

The question is, what is clarity? Is it hearing everything that can be heard under certain artificial circumstances, e.g., the removal of some frequency bands such as low bass, or is it hearing everything that should be heard once everything is reproduced in full?

I gave an example:

For example, you have raved about being able to precisely hear the plucking of the double bass on some recordings. Yet this can also be due to the lack of deep bass which turns the attention to what happens at higher frequencies -- an artifact. When I hear double bass live, more often than not I can not hear the plucking of the instrument clearly, precisely because the full-range envelope of timbre, which involves deep bass, does not allow you to hear that.

Similar holds also for artificially tilted balances towards the treble in some systems. The sound may wow us with all this detail and 'clarity', but in reality the 'clarity' is an artifact of a tonal balance that is not natural. So is this genuine resolution then? I think not. Genuine resolution is something different.

 

[JackD201]

I disagree with you regarding punchinesss. I have found that this has everything to do with timing and phase (ie. integration). If it is integrated properly with regard to timing then it will give even more impact to that small speaker that doesn't have the solid bottom end. That punchiness is smeared when the subwoofer is not moving in harmony with the mid/bass and tweeter that actually give the "thwack" sound (it is in fact upper frequencies and not bass per se). The fundamental and the harmonics have to be in time or it won't have punchiness...nothing to do with the sub per se.

"The problem is when people try to get punchiness from the subs."

Ummm where exactly do we disagree?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Ked, I thought I read that you also thought MikeL's massive four driver sub towers were also extremely well integrated with his main speakers. That is a whole system concept though and perhaps not relevant in this sub integration discussion. Those main towers are not available separately, so in reality, the MM7 is a four tower speaker system having extremely low extension and coherence.

the main towers of the MM7's are not 'stand-alone' speakers. they have a bottom end roll off allowing seamless integration. if I turn off the bass towers; there is obvious missing bass fullness on 2/3rds of the musical content. and they cross over in the 25hz to 40hz area, depending on the settings used. the bass towers use class D amplification, but take their signal from the main tower speaker terminals, so are flavored by the main amplifiers. and finally, they are time and phase coherent, with a first order crossover and set on the same radius to the listening position as the main towers (and yes......at this point they are about an inch different on their radius as the main towers).

 

[ack]

I am also conflicted about my goals. I do not know if I want my system to remind me of the sound of real instruments more than I want my system to try to more closely reproduce what has been captured on the recording.

BTW, nothing wrong about being conflicted - we all go through this.

Regardless of the goal, I certainly do not want a system that inherently reduces clarity so that it sounds a bit more like some instrument that is in a warm, "fuller acoustic" so that "some of those details are less apparent, less 'clear'...."

I want my system to be clean, clear, transparent and neutral but I do not want it to impart a sterility or thinness, or sameness to every recording.

Totally agree with you here, and disagree with what Al and others said, because a good recording - if reproducing it is your goal, as is for me - is Never muddied up; in fact, it will always be quite clear. Music halls all sound different from each other, and some are very clear and others aren't. So if shaping your system's sound to be like any one of these halls, then first, good luck, and second, welcome to muddied sound (to one degree or another). I agree with Al that a plucked upright bass, for example, doesn't sound very clean from a distance, but this is NOT what the microphone may have picked up - in fact, chances are the instrument was close-mic'd and therefore, it captured all the information. Therefore, yet one more reason all I care about is to reproduce the recording, not necessarily what I hear at a hall or live event - with the distinct exception that timbre must be right and dynamics to the best degree possible.

Therefore, I too very much prefer a cleaner sound when a sub is involved than anything else. It took me a decade to integrate my sub, and I finally did it to a satisfactory degree (I think) last month or so. You do hear the low frequencies when the program calls for it, but it does not interfere with the main speakers. As I had long suspected, the bigger part of the problem all these years was NOT the sub, but everything upstream, from the sources to the amps, with slow thick bass. Once all this was fixed with newer equipment and modifications, the sub dialed in nicely and rather quickly; the sub modifications helped with its own speed and tautness. In other words, if you cannot integrate a good sub in your system, don't blame the sub as the main culprit in that failed integration.

 

[Al M.]

Totally agree with you here, and disagree with what Al and others said, because a good recording - if reproducing it is your goal, as is for me - is Never muddied up; in fact, it will always be quite clear. Music halls all sound different from each other, and some are very clear and others aren't.

I think there is a misunderstanding here, Ack. I did not by any means imply that a hall with a "fuller" tonal balance is necessarily less clear. There are plenty warm sounding concert halls with excellent acoustics! It is just that the tonal balance suppresses certain details that you hear with a lighter tonal balance, and -- I forgot this to mention -- it emphasizes other details that you do not hear with a lighter tonal balance (a quick example: wooden body vs. sound of strings themselves on violins). Both presentations can have great clarity in their own way.

Same thing with the tonal balance in a system. A tonal balance within the same system may even change, and both may sound natural. I have experienced this also in your system with the panels which may be sensitive to humidity (or so you told me, I think). One day the tonal balance was lighter and brighter, and another more full-bodied. Both presentations sounded great, and both emphasized different details, or the same details differently.

 

[Al M.]

I agree with Al that a plucked upright bass, for example, doesn't sound very clean from a distance, but this is NOT what the microphone may have picked up - in fact, chances are the instrument was close-mic'd and therefore, it captured all the information.

I have also heard plucked upright bass from close-by where I did not hear the plucking sound either. Just a lot of full, 'bassy' sounding, round notes.

 

[ack]

It is just that the tonal balance suppresses certain details that you hear with a lighter tonal balance

No disagreement here - but again, this is likely not what the microphone picked up, it sitting mere inches or feet to any instrument. Two completely different things - recordings and what we actually hear from a distance - due to distinct sensitivities as a function of distance. The day someone comes up with a microphone and recording technique that matches what we hear at the same distance, then we will be talking apples to apples.

The bottom line from my perspective is that a sub should simply extend the frequency range, not interfere.

 

[morricab]

Hi yes though I wouldn't call them subs, they are part of the speaker

For me that would depend on what frequency range the "sub" woofers are intended to cover. For example, my Infinity IRS Beta woofer towers covered up to about at least 110Hz. From my POV, they were not just subwoofers since the panels could not make appreciable bass on their own and were therefore integral to the whole system. For a system that can make reasonable bass on it's own then the addition of an external woofer system would be classified as a subwoofer. That said, a sub/sat system would be both a subwoofer AND integral to the whole system...

 

[morricab]

"The problem is when people try to get punchiness from the subs."

Ummm where exactly do we disagree?

Maybe I misunderstood your comment because it read like you were saying that you mess up punchiness by trying to integrate a sub. A sub is neither punchy nor unpunchy on it's own if it is only doing <80Hz reproduction but it can mess up punchiness easily with poor integration with the main speaker.

 

[morricab]

Is there a difference between front firing subs and those that fire downward when it comes to placement, the time/phase relationship and proper integration?

I don't have really experience with downfiring subwoofers so I cannot really address your question.

 

[microstrip]

I think there are several things being convoluted together here that I will try to unravel. First there should be no distinction or dichotomy between clarity and realism. The problem comes when you discuss real is "at what distance from the performers". The reason that this is important is that nearly all recordings are made up close...inlcuding large orchestral works. This means that real, sitting in the middle to rear of a hall, will never sound much like what is on a recording nor will it have the clarity that one regularly gets from good recordings. Even in the best halls it will still be lower than a good recording due to the reflections and losses from absoprtion and diffusion of the hall and people in the hall. Now, if you sit very close to the band or orchestra in a good hall you will have a very high degree of clarity.

IMO, the only live experiences that really truly qualify as references are those where you are close to the performers as would the microphones be on most recordings. This is especially true for unamplified performances. Most listening experiences at a distance are enjoyable but lack the impact of what can be deliverd live up close or from a great recording. I have only one recording in fact where I know for sure it was recorded at a distance. This is a recording given to me by the engineer himself so I have all details about it (it was taken at 6 meters distance from the orchestra and without compression and a minimal amound of equilization on a single stereo ribbon microphone). I have also made some recordings of solo violin, violin and piano, violin and cello and string quartet...all at close range (within 3 meters). Now, if all classical recordings were made in situ, meaning well into the auditorium (say middle center) then a more normal seating location for a live performance would likely translate better to what we hear on recordings. Recordings would also be less clear to some degree... but that is not what we get.

Some of the most striking performances I have heard have been chamber music where I was sitting very close to the performers. Those I take as mental reference when I listen to a piece of chamber music on my system. Only the above mentioned recording allows me some conception of how realistic my system sounds with large orchestra...most recordings and live don't translate becuase of hte stark difference in how you listen to an orchestra live vs. how they are recorded.

Realism and clarity don't necessarily have to go together because something can easily be live but not clear due to distance and environmental factors. That said, sitting up close and listening to a good recording of the same should provide a comparable experience live and recorded...if not the system in question has an issue.

Subwoofers can be well integrated but consideration for timing and phase are paramount...not the smoothness of the FR. IMO, two-way systems offer better integration compared to most multi-way but a small monitor cannot deliver the level of realism one gets sitting close to a Jazz band or string quartet...perhaps a solo voice or guitar but otherwise not really if we are honest with ourselves. I have been hesitant to go with more than a two-way horn because of the integration issues I have heard with most multi-way horns, which IMO robs realism. I have heard one that doesn't do this but it is unaffordable to me. However, I have found that my two-way horn delivers more impact and realism than nearly all multi-way cone/dome speakers I know and quite a bit more than monitor speakers like Reference 3a, which I know the sound of very well.

Thanks for telling us how so well how you build your preference. It is clear you prefer to listen close - and in such circumstances I really accept that horns are a real choice.

IMHO the only honesty in this hobby is writing IMHO when we refer to our opinions. There are too many uncontrollable and unknown variables in the high-end, the only worthwhile extra-precision we can give is referring to known recordings everyone can get and detailing our opinion in a precise and direct way only skilled people can write - unfortunately not me.

The way we want to listen is also part of the equation. Listening to horns, panels, mini-monitors or large speakers are different experiences. Probably I could happily survive with any of them, remembering that perhaps Beranek's Law , formulated for speaker building, also applies to building high-end systems: "It has been remarked that if one selects his own components, builds his own enclosure, and is convinced that he has made a wise choice of design, then his own loudspeaker sounds better to him than does anyone else's loudspeaker. (...) " (Leo Beranek, Acoustics, 1954)

 

[morricab]

Morricab, thank you for articulating the importance of clarity and how it relates to realism in particular with reference to listener position in the audience and mic position in recordings. In my post I struggled when trying to describe the relationship between clarity and realism but you seem to explain it better. However, I am still a bit confused by your two statements which I highlighted. I agree with both statements and tried to reconcile them in my post but when reading your two similar statements, I still think some further discussion is needed.

Al seems to think that clarity and realism are distinct concepts when discussing reproduced music and favors realism if it comes at the expense of clarity in the context of adding a subwoofer. He and I disagree about this. See his post below:



The interesting thing is that Al and I both enjoy sitting up close when we listen to live music. This is generally the way mics capture the sound on the recording, and we used our memories of these experiences as references when we judge our system's performance. Up close, I hear clarity above all else. Of course, it is also real. That is why in this context, clarity and realism are the same and not distinct. Seated further away, they can be distinct because of the effect of the hall on perceived clarity. Recordings attempt to capture clarity, for the most part, so my goal is to reproduce what is on the recording which in theory lines up with my reference of listening to live music up close. Al and I have a friend in the Boston Audio Group who prefers to sit in the front center of the first balcony at Boston's Symphony Hall. Up and away over there, the sense of clarity is surely different, yet he uses live music as his reference and yet clarity, immediacy and articulation are paramount in his goals with his system. Audiophiles do not seem to agree about these concepts.

A real live performance sounds real, regardless of how clearly you hear it. Hearing a live marching band coming down the street would be a reasonable example. It may not be terribly clear (i.e. you can't separate the trombone from the trumpet in space or even most of the notes) but you sure as hell know that it is a live sound you are hearing and not a reproduction of a recording. Same with sitting in the back of the hall. Even though the dynamics and clarity are dimenished you wouldn't mistake it for playback.

There is something about the dynamic envelope of sound that is more important in defining realistic sound than just clarity. Of course, we all prefer to hear all the musicians clearly and in their space live as well as on a recording. I am remined of a recent marching band experience where we were standing only a few meters from the band...First it was LOUD...but not in an ear splitting way (more like an exciting way) and second it was CLEAR and PRESENT. Also, placement of all musicians was easily heard clearly defined(this is also easier with the visual element), also tonally. This presence is sorely lacking in most systems for reproduction. The clarity is there but the life is not. I don't care what Al says, the Ref 3as don't really have it...and Lord knows I tried to get it from them because they are better than nearly all small speakers I have heard in that regard (Odeon Orfeos are pretty good this way too). So far, every Magico demo I have heard is FAR away from the presence of live music...especially upclose live music (no, I haven't heard your model). Most Magico demos make a sound closer to live music from several rows further back or down the street (although clearer) regardless of the closeness of the recording...and yet not even that because it cannot convince it was live...even with a good live recording.

There are many many speakers that are transparent, or as we have been saying, have clarity but most of these do not have the presence and "jump"...the sound kind of sits there all pretty and clear but not grabbing you like this marching band or even the Schubert String Quintet concert I heard years ago in the London home of a doctor. God knows they don't come close to when my ex-girlfriend would play a Strad in my apartment...that was a sonic cannon that made my ears pulsate!! This is where, IMO, realism comes from and why otherwise colored and perhaps not the last word in clarity (because of resonances and coloration) horns can still sound reasonably realistic...at least relative to other speaker technologies.

IMO, they are distinct because most recordings are pretty clear and up close and yet very few systems get even in the ballpark of allowing them to sound realistic. Clarity without dynamics is dead sounding. Most speakers make a very poor attempt at dynamics, which is the most likely source of realism, presence and "jump".

 

[morricab]

Thanks for telling us how so well how you build your preference. It is clear you prefer to listen close - and in such circumstances I really accept that horns are a real choice.

IMHO the only honesty in this hobby is writing IMHO when we refer to our opinions. There are too many uncontrollable and unknown variables in the high-end, the only worthwhile extra-precision we can give is referring to known recordings everyone can get and detailing our opinion in a precise and direct way only skilled people can write - unfortunately not me.

The way we want to listen is also part of the equation. Listening to horns, panels, mini-monitors or large speakers are different experiences. Probably I could happily survive with any of them, remembering that perhaps Beranek's Law , formulated for speaker building, also applies to building high-end systems: "It has been remarked that if one selects his own components, builds his own enclosure, and is convinced that he has made a wise choice of design, then his own loudspeaker sounds better to him than does anyone else's loudspeaker. (...) " (Leo Beranek, Acoustics, 1954)

Well there is a reason that the most expensive tickets to a concert are pretty much up close and centered. However, I enjoy sitting at various locations in a concert hall...even behind the orchestra can be fun and enlightening (I did this recently with Beethoven's 9th symphony in the new MAAG Tonhalle (Tonhalle Zürich is under rennovation). My point was more that as a reference live up close is the only thing that is really similar to what is on most recordings. If your liver reference is only mid-hall or amplified concerts then your reference will never match your recordings.

 

[Al M.]

The bottom line from my perspective is that a sub should simply extend the frequency range, not interfere.

We are in no less than full agreement.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Of course no need to mention the importance of an analog crossover which is also rare these days.

david

I wrote a post on this aspect, however interrupted to have a coffee, WBF logged me out , and when I posted it all was lost ...

I was addressing the JL Audio CR-1 analog crossover, that I got sometime ago, but did not have the time to play with - I decided to settle electronics in my system before moving the F113/II definitively to the room. The CR-1 has an additional control - the filter damping control, missing from most subwoofers. In a short experience with it - just audiophile curiosity - I found it could help a lot to blend the sub with the XLF. More to come.

Fortunately Marty wrote a few posts on it. http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?19361-The-JL-Audio-CR-1-analog-vs-TacT-digital-crossover