True or False: If a System Can Sound Great with Orchestral Music, Can it Also ROCK?

[the sound of Tao]

Regarding loudspeakers, and feel to expand or disagree with me on this; in general studio monitors (ie B&W 801D's) may rock the heck out of you in the near-field listing position, but are going to pale in comparison to an electrostatic locked into the sweet-spot when capturing the air and ambiance of a opera hall.

Solid state can provide an unending rhythmic drive, but tubes will fill you with the joy of angles singing.

And as I mentioned already regarding turntables, direct drive provides a solid base for power rock, but belt drive has that tone tapping sparkle with a lightness of air about it.

It's exceeding difficult for one system to wear so many hats at once and with equal democracy.

And this is why we herald so highly those few combinations of system components that thread this elusive conceptual needle even handily.

Beautifully put... being all things to all people isn’t possible. This is part of the challenge of our pursuit.

 

[Atmasphere]

Mike, explain to me how an analog Lp has the ability to produce more bandwidth than digital. Given the RIAA curve required to make the lower freq listenable. What am I missing ?

Stereo LPs have bandwidth from about 10Hz to over 40KHz in both record and playback. Typically they can go much higher than that. The RIAA curve has nothing to do with it.

Regarding the OP: any good stereo system if good at one will be good with the other. From a designer's perspective there isn't anything you can do to a loudspeaker or amplification train that will allow a stereo to favor one type of music over another. This is without question the most pervasive myth in audio (not just high end audio)!

And make no mistake, it is a myth. Those that say otherwise have not played enough classical music and rock music on their stereo; both genres have excellent and terrible recordings and if you don't get exposed to enough that might explain why this myth persists. You can't make the midrange more or less prominent to favor a genre- nor can you boost the bass to do it. Classical music needs excellent bass capabilities so that bass drums and organ pedal tones can be reproduced properly- that's helpful for rock too. Rock needs good smooth undistorted speed to get cymbals right. Classical needs the same thing for strings and brass. No matter what argument is brought up to refute my comments here, in the end it will be found fallacious.

Even an inexpensive stereo if properly set up will not favor either genre. I actually had someone ask me once how well our stuff did with downtempo 80s rock. Sheesh. The answer of course was 'just fine'... Again- there is nothing inside any audio equipment that you can mess with that will allow that equipment to favor a music genre. If its got good linearity it will work well with all genres, if it is dodgy in that respect then it will be dodgy with all genres. Electronics has no taste whatsoever- that is the pervue of humans.

 

[kach22i]

If its got good linearity it will work well with all genres, if it is dodgy in that respect then it will be dodgy with all genres. Electronics has no taste whatsoever- that is the pervue of humans.

You have to admit that some genres will conceal or expose the short comings and strengths of an audio system.

And if you cannot admit that, then at least admit a song or two sounds better because the system complements it or sounds worse because the system fails it.

You seem to be assuming good linearity is common and easily granted by the Audio Gods, it isn't - our entire hobby is based on this elusiveness.

The Audio Gods laugh at us mortals and the futility of our struggles.

 

[Duke LeJeune]

From a designer's perspective there isn't anything you can do to a loudspeaker or amplification train that will allow a stereo to favor one type of music over another.

Agreed.

I have been wondering what I would do differently if one person told me they wanted a speaker for classical and the next person told me they wanted a speaker for electronica. In each case I'd ask about their room and their amplification and their budget, and whether there are any other particular requirements or constraints, but that's about it. Sure pipe organ music does have more demanding bandwidth requirements, but the imo the basics of what the speaker sounds like and how it interacts with the room & amp would not change with music genre.

 

[JackD201]

I agree with Ralph. That's what I meant when I said every system has a given performance envelope. It is not a genre issue but rather a compositional one. Two thirds of total energy for 75pc orchestra come from everything but the bass drum which makes up a third. Compare that to a composition with an electric bass look at how that shifts way left on an FFT. In a sense, refinement, expression and clarity being equal, music composed around acoustic instruments is easier to reproduce than those composed around electric (not electronic!) instruments. That classical is hardest to reproduce from a power to spl ratio standpoint is indeed a myth. No debate as we've seen countless flea powered systems achieve fantastic results. Thee instruments used dictates not the genre per se.

There's a reason so many people get locked in to female vocals and small ensemble music. Why this is so prevalent at audio shows. It is easy and flattering. Systems that do this well are perfect for people that listen mostly if not only to that. Nothing wrong there. It's when these owners now look to expand their listening that the demands change and the system now showing their limitations and/or chosen trade offs might require addressing.

As this now relates to the OP, what direction to go from there? My inference is that Caesar's hypothetical question is about somebody that wants to enjoy the broadest possible range of music. I say build a system that has the required performance envelope. One that plays clearly and naturally at low levels but can scale up not just on peaks but run at sustained SPLs with minimal electronic and thermal distortion. This to me is the definition of a "good" system regardless of price, size or topologies. A system like this still might favor some recordings over others but that could be a matter of personal tuning too. What should be able to do is be flexible enough for anything to be enjoyable.

 

[kach22i]

Well, I cannot say if engineering types are designing both conventional dynamic box systems and flat panel speakers (electrostatic, ribbon, and resonance speakers etc...), but the customers have those choices and will base their selection on what is available, what sounds good to them, and NOT bench numbers on good linearity.

Like it or not there are strengths and weakness of not just loudspeakers but of all electronic equipment that determines
If a System Can Sound Great with Orchestral Music and Also ROCK.
Just my opinion.

Can I imagine a designer intentionally designing a system mostly to capture intimate small scale recordings, and another designer intent on recreating large scale musical events? Sure I can, and I'm pretty sure it's been done many times.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Can I imagine a designer intentionally designing a system mostly to capture intimate small scale recordings, and another designer intent on recreating large scale musical events?

And what genre would either of these suit? I know that my classical listening encompasses both.

 

[Bodhi]

I"m maybe a bit biased, but imho the Magico S5 Mk2 speakers do large and small orchestral music & can also rock given the right partnering amplification. They're "great allrounders", particularly the Mk2's which are more neutral and just better across the board than the Mk1 .

 

[kach22i]

And what genre would either of these suit? I know that my classical listening encompasses both.

We all know in our hearts as either designers, sellers, or customers that What we want is "What's Best", and what is best will have no compromises.

We all know in our minds that the real world has limits and compromises.

The example I gave earlier of a near field studio monitor on Rock & Roll verses a sweet-spot panel speaker capturing the ambience of a orchestra hall filled with Classical music is as clear as I can make it.

However, regarding amplification I can come up with an example that I've described many times before. The difference between Tubes and Solid State.

Tubes reproduce the middle part of a note in full but the leading attack transient and trailing fade transient can go under realized.

Solid State gets to the note quicker, and leaves quicker but does not linger on the fundamental note very long, making it sound less fully realized in the middle.

The fast attack leading transient on lead guitar is as important as the leading transient on bass, and it is these aspects why S.S. rocks so well.

Capturing the instruments, spaces and voices of Classical Music is just more full and fulfilling with tubes getting the middle part of a note so right.

The comparisons above are terribly generalized but accurate for some of the older equipment in the 1950's - 1980's and meant to make a point, and not to exclude the exceptions.

 

[Atmasphere]

You have to admit that some genres will conceal or expose the short comings and strengths of an audio system.

And if you cannot admit that, then at least admit a song or two sounds better because the system complements it or sounds worse because the system fails it.

You seem to be assuming good linearity is common and easily granted by the Audio Gods, it isn't - our entire hobby is based on this elusiveness.

The Audio Gods laugh at us mortals and the futility of our struggles.

I don't have to admit that some genres "will conceal or expose the short comings and strengths of an audio system." The simple fact is all of them do.

Good linearity is not granted by gods- it is the result of good engineering. And its not that hard. I just set up a little system using a 1972 Realistic SA175 solid state amp that makes about 6 watts per channel, and it rocks and plays classical equally well. And both genres easily reveal the shortcomings of that system, yet at the same time its pleasing and easy to listen to regardless of genre. Set up might be more important than the equipment you're using!

(snip)
However, regarding amplification I can come up with an example that I've described many times before. The difference between Tubes and Solid State.

Tubes reproduce the middle part of a note in full but the leading attack transient and trailing fade transient can go under realized.

Solid State gets to the note quicker, and leaves quicker but does not linger on the fundamental note very long, making it sound less fully realized in the middle.

The fast attack leading transient on lead guitar is as important as the leading transient on bass, and it is these aspects why S.S. rocks so well.

Capturing the instruments, spaces and voices of Classical Music is just more full and fulfilling with tubes getting the middle part of a note so right.

The comparisons above are terribly generalized but accurate for some of the older equipment in the 1950's - 1980's and meant to make a point, and not to exclude the exceptions.

I don't agree with this assessment of the difference between tubes and solid state at all! Tubes are just as fast as solid state and if anything do the trailing edge better than transistors do. The problem here isn't tubes/transistors but something else called 'Gain Bandwidth Product'. Its a bit technical to explain but in a nutshell where GBP is important is the application of feedback. Traditionally no amplifier made has had enough feedback (IOW is able to not only suppress distortion but also suppress the distortion that its application generates) until very recently, the reason being that the GBP value with all of them is insufficient to allow the amplifier to be undistorted at all frequencies. IOW, because of this there is distortion that feedback won't be able to correct. When you see distortion measurements on amplifiers you won't see 20KHz shown or even 7KHz; you'll see 1KHz at the most and often a much lower frequency. The reason is the industry has used a simple technique to deal with the distortion at higher frequencies.

This technique is called 'lying'. Its been used successfully in audio for about 5 or 6 decades, and as a result we audiophiles no matter tube or solid state, objectivist or subjectivist, know to take the gear home and try it in our system regardless of what the spec sheet says.

Now the reason we can't run enough feedback is we can't build an amp with enough gain that also does not have problems with something called 'phase margin'. This is the property of the amp where phase shift causes negative feedback to become positive at some ultrasonic frequency which leads to oscillation. So we have to avoid feedback at and above this frequency! As you add gain stages within the feedback look, the phase margin of the circuit degrades.

There are three ways out of this that I know of- maybe there are more. The first is to avoid feedback and simply make a linear circuit relying on other means to avoid or reduce feedback (that is what we've been doing with our OTLs for the last 44 years). The second is to make the feedback loop shorter by not encompassing as many gain stages but nevertheless having enough feedback (at least 35dB) so the feedback can actually correct for the distortion which its application introduces (this is possible with OTLs but most other tube amps will be unstable with this approach due to the output transformer). The third way is class D, since generating a lot of gain through class D is fairly easy and stability a non-issue if the amp is self-oscillating.

So for now, we hear differences between amps whether tube or transistor, and none of those differences favor a certain musical genre. The idea that a system can support one taste in music over another is myth and based as best I can make out on insufficient exposure to a wide range of recordings and music. As a result this myth will continue for many years.

 

[Gregadd]

When Ralph " writes I read( you to Jack)."
Female vocals.
They occur on frequency spectrum that is easier for a system to reproduce. Most systems cover that area well albeit some better than others. The female voice is very soothing to men and children. It is is an issue of design compromise.What can I do at this price point or speaker size,amplifier power,etc?
Two of my go to records for system evaluation is therecording by Telarc Stravinsky Firebird Suite and Jimi Hendrix Band of Gypsys. Both have explosive dynamics.
The Telarc ranges from barely audible to explosive canon shots. Full orchestra and choral are present. The Hendrix album starts out in your face and gets louder.
I don't believe I have ever gotten the most from these recordings. But if you were to plot curves of the i.improvement the tcurve for Telarc is much steeper.
Both records benefited more nuanced and powerful systems There is just much more to decipher on the Telarc.
So it is not an issue of favoring one genre over another. It is what design compromises were made and to what effect.
This is why I think Sanderssound is a candidate for best speaker.

 

[Gregadd]

Ralph I think you should be careful. Your all out products contradict the claim that all electronics are equal when playing rock and orchestra.
I find it difficult to accept that a compromised system plays orchestra equally well and thier faults are equally o obvious. The two genres do not present the same challenge.

 

[cjfrbw]

Thanks, Ralph, that was a very nice elucidation.

 

[Atmasphere]

Ralph I think you should be careful. Your all out products contradict the claim that all electronics are equal when playing rock and orchestra.
I find it difficult to accept that a compromised system plays orchestra equally well and thier faults are equally o obvious. The two genres do not present the same challenge.

As far as electronic signals are concerned, they most definitely do. The amp or preamp or loudspeaker really doesn't know the difference- its job is to simply deal with the signal as best it can. So classical music presents the same challenge to any audio system as does rock. If the system is bright that will color both genres equally- but its up to the taste of the listener as to whether or not they like that coloration and what music they like.

(Now if you have bad filter caps in a guitar amplifier, it will be good for blues, but that is because many blues players have played with amps that have bad or poor filter caps in their guitar amps, so that sound as gotten baked into the genre. But that doesn't translate to a playback system where outright distortion isn't supposed to be part of the sound.)

 

[Gregadd]

You are right as usual. Just to be clear I am talking about a properly functioning cometent desigm. My point is rock does not present the same signal as orchesyra.

 

[Atmasphere]

My point is rock does not present the same signal as orchesyra.

Of course you are correct. But about the only way you can tell is to see what it looks like on an oscilloscope. But the bandwidth required for either is the same, and dynamics had better be coming from the recording and not the equipment (if it is the latter, its due to higher ordered harmonic distortion masquerading as 'dynamics'). So when looking at a schematic of any amp or preamp, there isn't a part you can point to and truthfully say 'if we change that part this will sound better with classical as opposed to rock'.

 

[kach22i]

I don't have to admit that some genres "will conceal or expose the short comings and strengths of an audio system." The simple fact is all of them do.

Good linearity is not granted by gods- it is the result of good engineering. ........

Thank you for the good read and all the information.

I feel like we are talking past each other though because the genres are all recorded in different spaces by different engineers/technicians/producers with differences of taste and intent of expression that reflect their personal values (or lack of).

So it is the sources, master tapes, the LP's the CD's and so forth that will tend to emphasize these colorized versions of reality, and certain equipment will be better adapt at flushing out the content.

The phrase "Audio Gods" was of course made in jest, but expresses the sense of fustration when dealing with one's own huberius that man can best nature or at least equal it.

....... the basics of what the speaker sounds like and how it interacts with the room & amp would not change with music genre.

To address the above I'll do more than post a link or use more words of my own. I will quote the article that I've posted already in the $7,000 system recommendation thread, a thread that caused this one to be created I assume.



April / May 2010

Analysis Audio Omega Loudspeaker Project
A revisit and modification of this ribbon loudspeaker.
Review By Dick Olsher
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/superioraudio/equipment/0410/analysis_audio_omega.htm

When folks ask me why I'm so enamored of large planar speakers, I try to emphasize two key points. First, dipole radiators couple energy to a room in a manner that more closely approximates a live acoustic instrument. It's a question of producing the most realistic soundfield at the listening seat. It has been known for many years that well over half the energy at the listening seat is due to reflected energy. A dipole midrange with adequate breathing space appears to provide the most immersive soundstage experience. By contrast, conventional box speakers give me the impression of being on the outside looking in. And unlike most box speakers, planars such as the Omega produce the illusion of live music even when I'm outside the listening room – clear on the other side of the house. That should be proof enough that dipoles sound more natural.

The other key ingredient is wave launch. While height information is not encoded in a recording, as microphones simply pickup sound pressure or velocity modulations in point in space, a planar woofer and line source ribbon can synthesize a wave launch that approximates the height and width of the real thing. I've never been interested in pinpoint imaging, which has been hailed by some pundits as a desirable attribute. To my ears, tiny focused "balls of sound" are artificial constructs that I've yet to experience during a live performance. Size matters. Live instruments do have breadth and height, and large planars do that far better than the competition. A good example of that is piano reproduction. Due to its large soundboard a live piano outputs a lot of acoustic energy over a large surface resulting in a low value of surface loudness density. A planar does justice to the original surface loudness, while conventional boxes seem to squeeze or birth a piano out of an 8 or 10 inch woofer. If such an image sounds painful, it is, and does not work for me. On the other end of the image size spectrum is the trumpet. It sounds piercing because it outputs a large amount of acoustic energy over a small surface area. The Omega also does that well, as the line source ribbon handles much of the trumpet's midrange and overtone structure.

As much as I like full-range electrostatics, I would be the first to admit that they can't handle macrodynamics with any kick ass conviction. Even the Apogee planars of old lacked sufficient slam. It's a different story with the Omega. But there's a catch… they clearly need a lot of power....................

..... an oscilloscope. ....... schematic of any amp or preamp....

I get and respect the engineering philosophy you so generously have shared with us, and it gives me a glimpse into another world.

However, this is the point from which we diverge because I think there is another side of the coin to this, and it is what we can actually use and enjoy as an end result.

Watching an oscilloscope dance and or studying the schematic of a amp or preamp that expresses an accomplishment - perhaps even a work of genius isn't a consumer's end goal. At best it is a hobbyist curiosity at what is behind and what makes up his/her favorite pastime.

 

[kach22i]

Adjacent topic - poking the bear: If a musician uses a different instrument or amp to perform with, then how can it be wrong to make a decision to select a playback system that will do that music or song justice?

Recording studio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_studio

The types and brands of music equipment owned by a studio depends on the styles of music for the bands and artists that typically record there. A studio that mainly records heavy metal music will be likely to have large, powerful guitar amp heads and speaker stacks (e.g., Marshall Amplification amps for guitar). In contrast, a studio which mainly records country bands will likely have a selection of smaller, vintage combo amps (e.g., 1950s Fender "tweed" combos). A studio that records a lot of 1970s-style funk may have a vintage electric piano or Clavinet.

I will have to admit, sometimes there is no musical instrument or original performance room to recreate, then what?

List of electronic music genres
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electronic_music_genres

In the late 1980s, electronic dance music (EDM) records made using only electronic instruments became increasingly popular, resulting in a proliferation of electronic genres, subgenres, and scenes.[6] In the new millennium, as computer technology became even more accessible and music software advanced, interacting with music production technology made it possible to create music that has some similarities and some differences to traditional musical performance practices, leading to further developments and rapidly evolving subgenres.[7]

 

[Duke LeJeune]

[quoting Dick Olsher]dipole radiators couple energy to a room in a manner that more closely approximates a live acoustic instrument. It's a question of producing the most realistic soundfield at the listening seat. It has been known for many years that well over half the energy at the listening seat is due to reflected energy. A dipole midrange with adequate breathing space appears to provide the most immersive soundstage experience. By contrast, conventional box speakers give me the impression of being on the outside looking in. And unlike most box speakers, planars such as the Omega produce the illusion of live music even when I'm outside the listening room – clear on the other side of the house. That should be proof enough that dipoles sound more natural.

I agree with what Dick Olsher is saying about dipoles. About thirteen years ago I helped him find a buyer for his SoundLab A1's, which he had owned since 1992.

 

[Gregadd]

Whew!I am glad all I have to do is listen.