What determines "believability of the reproduction illusion"

[fas42]

I just did the experiment that Frank suggested up thread about moving in a straight line from the sweet spot up to the plane of the speakers and then off to one side, getting closer to one speaker. In my system, the location of the instruments remained the same, though standing up made the stage seem slightly lower. It then remained slightly lower as I walked around the room. However, the locations of the instruments remained fixed, and the sound seemed about as natural everywhere in the room. Tone, dynamics and resolution remained very similar, however, once I returned and sat in the sweet spot, my perspective to the stage seemed more like my actual seat in the concert hall about twelve rows back in the center of the orchestra. The scale and imaging were more realistic when seated in the sweet spot and the presentation was more convincing, but I would be hard pressed to describe the sound of individual instruments as being less realistic in terms of timbre or tone. Volume of individual instruments changed as I moved about and approached the speakers, but their relative positioning on the stage seemed to remain. I dare say, it was a bit like walking around on a stage among the musicians. Of course, ultimate scale was smaller, sound pressure less, and clarity not quite the same as the real thing, but it was convincing, nevertheless.

I only tried this listening to one LP: Heifetz/Piatigorsky playing Brahm's Concerto for violin and cello. I may try it again with a variety of recordings, but I think I finally understand what Frank is getting at.

That's excellent, Peter, thanks for doing that! I take it that the sound didn't appear to lose the illusion of appearing between and beyond the speakers at some point of moving sideways, and from that point on be clearly emanating from the closer speaker itself? If so, I'm impressed! If this is working to a high level, then the exercise with a true mono recording, as described earlier should make this behaviour even clearer - the problem with LP of course, is that it is almost impossible to have the two channels perfectly match in every respect, though if one has a preamp with a mono function, or equivalent, then it can be largely verified.

And, I heave a sigh of relief that we now understand each other! What intrigued me, and I have crossed this hurdle so many times, is that the key factor is the quality of the functioning of the electronics, the nature of the speaker is quite irrelevant IME. The only factors for the speakers that I have found to be especially important is that they are highly stable in their position, and that cheaper drivers need to be exercised strongly, for their suspensions to free up enough.

 

[fas42]

My goal is effortless playback. The system has to be able to handle whatever you throw at it. The first thing you want to avoid is under-powering a system or even worse running the speakers into power compression by running them into the top end of their power ratings. This is where horns have a huge advantage over typical systems. All speaker systems suffer from power compression the whole idea is to never push them there. To have effortless playback you need clean transients at realistic levels or it won't sound natural/real. I can turn my set-up way down and still hear the dynamic contrasts if I want it to sound close to real I need realistic levels at not just the average level but also on peaks. The peaks is where the 118db capability comes into the picture.

Rob

Yes, I agree that horns have a huge advantage, but I dispute that speaker systems suffer from power compression, in the areas that matter for normal listening - it's the amplifier that's been the cause of the perceived compression, not the speakers; that's been my experience. That conventional drivers can do it with ease was confirmed when I heard the Dynaudios driven by Bryston, this was horn PA and beyond intensity, with total clarity and lack of distortion - in PeterA's terms, this had Presence at sound levels well beyond listening to orchestral works from an audience perspective.

Obviously if there is plenty of headroom this makes the job easier - but I have been impressed by the subjective dynamics of speaker systems of 90 or so dB sensitivity, driven by competent 60W amplifiers; I haven't felt a lacking in what I'm hearing, with regard to transient impact, at all.

 

[stehno]

This is the story, yet again, expressed in another fashion - the rarity of systems achieving this is why many don't "get" what the fuss is about; it needs to be experienced to be properly understood.

The point about multiple channels is key - those who claim that such is the only way to achieve immersive hearing obviously haven't heard a system good enough to throw up a complete soundscape, which is as large as the recording dictates.

Agreed.

 

[stehno]

OK, Frank and Stehno, it took a while to get here, but I now realize that we are describing the same thing in slightly different ways. I have heard the type of sound/system you are describing. And I have written about them in posts. This thread is the first time that Frank's approach has been described in a way that I can understand, in the sense that it is the sound of the system or experience, and beyond his previous ( I think, incomplete) explanations of modifying electronics.

What you two are describing, I have experienced and described as a sense of Presence. That is, it is a sound so convincing that I almost believe that I have been moved to the performance space in the presence of the musicians. These systems are rare, and I have heard them.

I agree that when everything is good, one does not need multiple channels to sound convincing. Two channels, done very well, are certainly enough. And the systems can be fairly modest by high end standards. I also agree about Stehno's comment about the wall of sound. I have heard this in systems, and it is artificial, unless one is talking about recreating an amplified live rock concert. This can often sound like a wall of sound. A symphony or jazz quartet, never sounds like this.

Stehno, I do not mean that sound is coming at the listener from all directions. It is coming from the image of the musicians in the recording at the front of the room. BUT, it then washes over the listener, and his experience is immersive like at a symphony. There are reflected sounds bouncing all over the place, and direct sound coming from the stage or front of the listening room. I still don't think of it in terms of a shape though.

Another key element is the disappearance of the system. When all is sorted out, the system is no longer a part of the experience. Only the sound.

One more way that I recognize that a system is capable of doing this is when I hear the distinction between the source of the sound, i.e. the musician, in space and the sound that the instrument makes. They are distinct from each other. The musician with his instrument is fixed in a place on stage, and his image and scale should remain as such. However, the sound emerging or exploding from that instrument, rushes out toward the listener, and is expanding in scale and position. Systems in my experience that can make clear this difference, are capable of sounding convincing and believable.

Al M. has also written about this phenomenon with certain systems and particular recordings.

I just did the experiment that Frank suggested up thread about moving in a straight line from the sweet spot up to the plane of the speakers and then off to one side, getting closer to one speaker. In my system, the location of the instruments remained the same, though standing up made the stage seem slightly lower. It then remained slightly lower as I walked around the room. However, the locations of the instruments remained fixed, and the sound seemed about as natural everywhere in the room. Tone, dynamics and resolution remained very similar, however, once I returned and sat in the sweet spot, my perspective to the stage seemed more like my actual seat in the concert hall about twelve rows back in the center of the orchestra. The scale and imaging were more realistic when seated in the sweet spot and the presentation was more convincing, but I would be hard pressed to describe the sound of individual instruments as being less realistic in terms of timbre or tone. Volume of individual instruments changed as I moved about and approached the speakers, but their relative positioning on the stage seemed to remain. I dare say, it was a bit like walking around on a stage among the musicians. Of course, ultimate scale was smaller, sound pressure less, and clarity not quite the same as the real thing, but it was convincing, nevertheless.

I only tried this listening to one LP: Heifetz/Piatigorsky playing Brahm's Concerto for violin and cello. I may try it again with a variety of recordings, but I think I finally understand what Frank is getting at.

Just a little clarification to ensure we're talking apples to apple and/or apples to oranges.

When Peter, Frank, myself or anybody else talks about experiencing systems with excellent levels of musicality or believability, such statements do not necessarily imply that any one of us are in agreement or have experienced much the same thing, or for that matter that any one of us really knows what we're talking about.

For example. Every last playback system and transistor radio will exhibit a sense of presence, you are there, etc type of experience to one good or bad degree and between those 2 points, the levels of believability are infinity. With potentially vastly different systems, preferences, hearing / interpreting skills, etc. it should be a given that though some of us seem to be in whole agreement on a subject matter on paper, in reality any one of us could literally be miles apart.

If only we could rely on measurements.

 

[morricab]

Fortunately, this is just not true - I have had "unbelievable" sound from small speakers so many times, this is a no-brainer. Powerful, intense, gut wrenching impact, big hammering hits from the drums - I've got this happening so often - and then visit a dealer with some mega speakers and try the same tracks, for comparison - and laugh ... p!ss weak, is the my usual reaction ...

I'm sorry, it is the electronics - the major concern is the quality of the power supply, this is why Krell immediately jumped to the top of the heap when they started, they realised that it was essential to get this area working better.

I would say that you are somewhat right but not completely. While I definitely agree you can get more realism from a small speaker with great electronics rather than vice versa, I would say that to get truly realistic scale for big works requires a bit speaker driven by great electronics. For small music it might be equivalent between large and small speaker but not for larger works. I have done both directions but never with less than excellent electronics and I find my system now with relatively large speakers (but somewhat small for horns) outpeforms, with the same electronics, the small speakers I had before (Reference 3a Master Control MMC with Be tweeter upgrade).

I have had huge speakers in the past (Infinity IRS beta, Acoustat Spectra 4400 for example) and they only delivered what was anticipated when I put truly great electronics on them. Otherwise they basically made a bigger mess of the sound because they were being given an unrealistic signal.

 

[morricab]

This is where fine-tuning is so essential - heard a dealer's setup using all Gryphon, the amp was one of the monsters they do, driving Sasha ... very ordinary, the notes were there, etc - but, no cigar ...

Sadly, this has been my experience as well with Gryphon electronics. Smooth, detailed but not much life...

 

[morricab]

Fair enough. But I have said many times that I don't worry about the very deep frequencies, where large, undistorted extension is essential, and quite expensive to make happen. Put it this way - I still haven't heard pipe organ, at significant volumes, sound as good on any other system, as I have at times on something of mine ...

You want to hear a pipe organ sound good then listen to the you tube video of the Aries Cerat system...that is good pipe organ!! Not a small speaker and amazing electronics...beauty, accuracy and scale!

 

[morricab]

Opposite in what way?

I don't need to get to 118dB, measurable levels, to get the impact I'm looking for - the cleanness of the playback means that my brain "opens up" to the sound, so to speak - the subjective sense is that the sound has got louder, but it hasn't! Just some weeks back, a chap on another chat site mentioned that as his system warmed up from cold in the morning that it got louder, he would always adjust his volume control to compensate -and wondered if the amp was doing something strange. I suggested that it was totally a subjective response to the change in quality as the system settled down - he went and tested it with a sound meter, and said, You're right! Zero change in SPLs, on the meter.

If the impact is not there from the quality, then an alternative way to get it would be to turn up the volume - but I prefer the quality route ...

It has been my experience that as a system gets better you can turn down the volume and still get the same impact from the sound. The lower a system can go without losing "grip" on the music is a good indicator of its total ability to resolve and make a "believable" sound. Systems that need to be played loud or at "realistic" levels to sound good are missing on a lot of low level information because they collapse if you lower the volume. This is why I loved electrostats for so long because they resolved down down down and especially once i started putting SET amps on them, which was contrary to all conventional wisdom...but it worked to improve that downward (in SPL) resolution even further.

I tried conventional speakers again but they really lose a lot in the end. So, as a size alternative I went to Odeon horns and that does the job nicely!

Where most hifi gear loses out is on the low end of the volume spectrum not at the high SPL end. This is the thing that many still don't realize and it impacts realism on a fundamental level.

 

[morricab]

Exactly. Even at lower SPLs systems that have the ability to play loud with full bass extension present themselves differently, are much more fun to listen to and are more believable. For me it takes both this and electronics/cables that are resolving enough.

THis I do not agree with really. Many speakers that play well at high SPLs collapse when you turn down the volume. Speakers that sound good at low volumes, such as electrostats, often cannot scale up to 110+db levels but when you get a full and satisfying sound at a much lower level why ruin your ears?

A system that does better at low volumes is a more resolving system, full stop. It might not be able to scale to "realistic" levels but so what? Most of the time we are not listening at "realistic" levels so it is far better to have a system that gives a realistic balance and dynamic at far lower volumes where "normal" listening occurs.

Most big, multi-way speakers have far too many losses to be good at low levels. This is the paradox. There are exceptions but a multi-way, low impedance, 87db/watt speaker will never give realism as it will be too low resolution for soft listening (and therefore missing low level ambient cues) and will start compressing too early for truly large dynamics. Only horns can seem to scale at both ends of the spectrum...but not even all of them. If one wants to have superb sound at moderate levels then it is really electrostats or smaller horns and the odd high sensitivity conventional speaker.

The electronics are crucial regarless of the speaker on this we agree.

 

[morricab]

So, speaking of resolution and the ability to reproduce spatial cues and fine detail, I've found one of the most important components to achieve this is interconnect cables. Most ICs smooth out fine detail, especially copper ic cables. I've heard a few copper cables that are pretty good like top end Jorma and KS, but they still aren't as resolving as UPOCC silver or silver/gold alloy. Good ic cables made using this material can reveal fine detail you may have never known existed and will not add anything negative to the sound.

If you want the best performance you really need to go through your system from source output to driver input and make sure unnecessary things are bypassed and only top quality parts are in the signal path. Wire, connector jacks, binding posts, dozens of passive components can all be upgraded, this will yield huge gains in resolution.

Also AC power conditioning, dirty power will leave a haze over everything and obscures detail. If it's bad it'll cause glassiness, glare and hard sound.

Finally, it's not just resolution that improves, it's also a sense of naturalness, a tension in the sound is relieved as well... this is absence of distortion and artifacts which are annoying and also obscure detail. In a system that's ready for it, doing the above will transform an ordinary system into something really special. I've heard cables and power conditioning literally transform a system a few times.

I went with Goertz silver foil cables after they beat the pants off of Kimber's top silver offerings. Much cheaper and all the resolution one could want...particluarly their silver Sapphire cable. The silver foil from Vacuumstate was also superb but I don't know if it is available anymore.

 

[fas42]

You want to hear a pipe organ sound good then listen to the you tube video of the Aries Cerat system...that is good pipe organ!! Not a small speaker and amazing electronics...beauty, accuracy and scale!

You mean this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPdOPt_bDSI ...

Very impressive, I like what it's doing ... and here's one back to you, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ9LQh3UbWU. This, unfortunately, was done with a very unsatisfactory recording device, poor signal to noise, and overloaded too easily ... but is from my now defunct Philips HT in a box a couple of years ago, a source of much humour on this forum back then ... gives one an idea what a cheap and nasty can do ...

 

[morricab]

You mean this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPdOPt_bDSI ...

Very impressive, I like what it's doing ... and here's one back to you, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ9LQh3UbWU. This, unfortunately, was done with a very unsatisfactory recording device, poor signal to noise, and overloaded too easily ... but is from my now defunct Philips HT in a box a couple of years ago, a source of much humour on this forum back then ... gives one an idea what a cheap and nasty can do ...

Yes, that one. I will be getting the Aries Cerat Diana Integrated soon for review...it should match nicely with my Odeons.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I have had huge speakers in the past (Infinity IRS beta, Acoustat Spectra 4400 for example) and they only delivered what was anticipated when I put truly great electronics on them. Otherwise they basically made a bigger mess of the sound because they were being given an unrealistic signal.

The IRS beta had a high believability factor when properly amplified playing vinyl - a good friend owned them in an old house, with high ceilings. Unfortunately every time I listened to it playing digital it was just a big mess of sound. However we should remember that at those times the SOTA digital was represented mainly by the Theta's and Mark Levinson's.

 

[PeterA]

The IRS beta had a high believability factor when properly amplified playing vinyl - a good friend owned them in an old house, with high ceilings. Unfortunately every time I listened to it playing digital it was just a big mess of sound. However we should remember that at those times the SOTA digital was represented mainly by the Theta's and Mark Levinson's.

This comment about digital reminds me of a question I wanted to ask before during the discussion about reproducing natural sounds/distortions from analog and mechanical and electrical devices. Nelson Pass was brought up regarding his writings about 2nd and 3rd order harmonic distortions. How might digital artifacts/distortions be interpreted differently from analog artifacts/distortions given what we are learning about ASA? Could any differences help explain why people seem to hear digital and analog distortions differently, and how might that relate to the current discussion about believability of the reproduced illusion?

 

[bonzo75]

They might not hear them differently if they don't know the truth. Like Jack said, digital lovers can't handle the truth

 

[microstrip]

They might not hear them differently if they don't know the truth. Like Jack said, digital lovers can't handle the truth

What truth? Digital sound reproduction can be very "believable" nowadays. But IMHO it was not in the 80's. There was too many roughness to soften, taking away the life of music.

 

[DaveC]

Interesting. What about cryo-treated IC's via the vapor or full-immersion method? Might not a superior cryo-treated IC put IC's at the very top of your list?



Not to downplay the significance of any of these matters, but huge is an awfully big word here. Don't you think stating something like "a nice distinct audible improvement" might more accurately reflect reality here?



What line conditioners do you use?



Not to pick at gnats, but actually it all boils down to resolution and the fidelity thereof. More specifically, it boils down to the percentage of music info embedded in the recording that remains audible (and maintain a high level of fidelity) above the noise floor and the percentage of music info that becomes inaudible below the noise floor. For the naturalness of the recording originates well, um..., naturally from the music info embedded in the recording, not the components, cables, connectors, speakers, line conditioners, etc. Isn't it really the components, the cables, the connections, lack of cryo'ing, lack of superior line conditioning, etc, etc. that introduce distortions, artifacts, and in essence strip away at the naturalness of any given recording?

But I agree that superior line conditioning (quite rare) can transform most any system to levels the unsuspecting never thought possible.

Many cables will benefit from cryo, it's worth trying... IME the worst that can happen is no change at all.

Forgive my hyperbole

I modify SurgeX SX 1120 and SEQ line conditioners, they have won best of show/cost no object along with a few other awards at the last two RMAFs along with my power cables. At RMAF 2014 it made a big difference, eliminating a lot of harshness and glare... VSA wouldn't have won best of show (TAS) without it, and this was their debut of the $60k VR-55 loudspeakers... 2015 was the introduction of Vapor's Perfect Storm and it won several awards but we used the SurgeX from the start and I never had the time to compare with and without. It was also used in the dc10 room powering a bunch of amazing Audio Teckne gear, including the debut of their 211 PP monoblocks. SurgeX is a great design but the stock parts need upgrading to prevent them contributing some undesirable effects.

On the last thing, yes, for sure... the information is there but is often molested by the signal chain, either adding warmth and smoothing out detail or introducing harshness that obscures it...

 

[jkeny]

This comment about digital reminds me of a question I wanted to ask before during the discussion about reproducing natural sounds/distortions from analog and mechanical and electrical devices. Nelson Pass was brought up regarding his writings about 2nd and 3rd order harmonic distortions. How might digital artifacts/distortions be interpreted differently from analog artifacts/distortions given what we are learning about ASA? Could any differences help explain why people seem to hear digital and analog distortions differently, and how might that relate to the current discussion about believability of the reproduced illusion?

Good question & I believe the answer lies in the differences between how analog reproduces audio vs how digital does. Analog is much more of a transcription process whereas digital is an interpretation process. Certainly with Sigma-delta DACs the process is much less direct than analog or R2R (DACs or tape). So with a process that relies on mathematical models, it's far easier to introduce artifacts that are very alien to our auditory perception - I'm thinking of one that Opus11 has referred to before on this forum - noise floor modulation (a noise floor that fluctuates with the signal). This is nowhere to be found in nature - an unnatural artifact & yet not a distortion (as in second, third or higher order harmonic distortion), per se.

Unnatural artifacts will kill believability quicker than other artifacts. Remember we are processing the signals in ASA according to our model of the auditory world that we have accumulated over time so anything that can't be categorised by this processing becomes an anomaly & kills the believability

 

[DaveC]

THis I do not agree with really. Many speakers that play well at high SPLs collapse when you turn down the volume. Speakers that sound good at low volumes, such as electrostats, often cannot scale up to 110+db levels but when you get a full and satisfying sound at a much lower level why ruin your ears?

A system that does better at low volumes is a more resolving system, full stop. It might not be able to scale to "realistic" levels but so what? Most of the time we are not listening at "realistic" levels so it is far better to have a system that gives a realistic balance and dynamic at far lower volumes where "normal" listening occurs.

Most big, multi-way speakers have far too many losses to be good at low levels. This is the paradox. There are exceptions but a multi-way, low impedance, 87db/watt speaker will never give realism as it will be too low resolution for soft listening (and therefore missing low level ambient cues) and will start compressing too early for truly large dynamics. Only horns can seem to scale at both ends of the spectrum...but not even all of them. If one wants to have superb sound at moderate levels then it is really electrostats or smaller horns and the odd high sensitivity conventional speaker.

The electronics are crucial regarless of the speaker on this we agree.

Well... I require both low and high volumes to sound good. ...and that the speaker can play at realistic SPLs, which can be quite high in the case of many genres of music.

The speaker I'm designing is about 105 dB efficient and uses simple first order crossovers, just a single high quality capacitor on both the mid and super tweeter... but it's also a 3-way with a massive 15" woofer and can hit 120 dB with no strain at all. The mid is a custom 4.5" driver with a 2-gram cone and a huge motor... when put in the horn it can play at any SPL you'd want within reason and is one of the best possible speakers at low SPLs as well.

It's actually very similar in concept to the Odeon horns, but my midrange horn covers a lot more of the frequency range, from 400 Hz to 15 kHz in fact... it's really the custom midrange driver combined with a horn designed specifically for the driver that makes it work...

Also, as far as quality low-SPL listening I think you'll find crossoverless single drivers in a nearfield setup with a small SET amp about the best solution possible if you use a quality driver from AER, Feastrex or Omega.

 

[DaveC]

I went with Goertz silver foil cables after they beat the pants off of Kimber's top silver offerings. Much cheaper and all the resolution one could want...particluarly their silver Sapphire cable. The silver foil from Vacuumstate was also superb but I don't know if it is available anymore.

Foil cables to me sound too smooth and there's no way to achieve proper geometry. UPOCC silver wire with proper geometry has more potential ime... part of it being geometry and part being the fact UPOCC silver is far better than conventional silver.