Our Systems, Scale, and the Sound of Music

PeterA · Oct 13, 2014

Recent experience with both large and small systems has me thinking about system capabilities, especially when it comes to scale and the sound of music. A few days ago, I heard fellow WBF member, Al M.'s system. It is a superb small system that seems to do just about everything right. The interesting thing about this system is that it is based around a pair of monitors and a subwoofer. It produced a very large, coherent, extended and effortless room-filling sound while maintaining correct image sizes. It also was able to accurately portray the critical distinction between the scale of the instrument or singer and the sound that that instrument or singer projects into space.

I like large speaker systems for their ability to reproduce large scale symphonic music, but I’ve been disappointed when they try to scale down to reproduce solo instruments or small chamber ensembles. Or worse, a single voice or guitar is as large as the front wall. These systems, in my experience, often produce a wall of sound in which rock music and symphonic pieces sound great but smaller music, including solo instruments, is just too big.

The system I heard the other day produced incredibly palpable images that seemed accurate in scale and they projected the sound into the room in a very realistic or convincing way. It shared a trait with the best systems I’ve heard which is that it was able to maintain the correct relative balance between image size and sound projection. Think of a soprano on stage. Her figure is relatively small, yet her voice can project a huge room-filling sound.

I’d like to start a discussion about the accurate portrayal of image scale and the relationship between the size of the instrument making the sound and the size of its projected sound into space. What is it about various systems that can reproduce different scales with equal success? Is it more about the room than it is about the system? Is it all about how the system is set up in the room? Can large, multi-driver speakers truly disappear and create the illusion of a solo cello in one’s living room, and can only large systems reproduce the image, scale and projected sound of a full orchestra?

Below is a photograph of Al M.’s system. It can produce a sound which is both big and effortless when the recording is of large scale music, and it can sound intimate and personal when the recording is of a smaller scale. In both cases, it disappears, gets to the heart of the performance and portrays the music in an emotional and natural way.

Perhaps peripheral to this discussion is how a system can sound so good even if it is not the last word in resolution and transparency. These components are mostly twenty or so years old, and yet, the system is set up so well and works so well with the room, that it sounds very convincing. Tone, dynamics and presence are excellent. The sound is smooth, relaxing, warm with great body, and quite detailed, yet there is no sense of fatigue. During loud passages, the system sounds at ease with no congestion or stress. It is a remarkable system, but what is almost unique in my experience is its uncanny ability to reproduce scale accurately and also to distinguish between the scale of the source of the sound and the size of the sound as it is projected into the room.

System details written by Al M. are below the photograph.

Room dimensions are 24’ x 12’ (small bay window next to the left speaker 13.5’) x 8.5’.

Older components, mostly more than 20 years old, with exception of the subwoofer (14 years old):

1. Ensemble Reference mini monitors (Stereophile review on the web), internally modified with large crossover caps and better cabling.
2. Single REL Storm III subwoofer
3. Audio Innovations Second Audio parallel push-pull triode 2A3 amps (2 x 15 W), heavily modified to great effect over the years by a specialist in Connecticut (Steve Marsh, reviewer at 6moons).
4. Cables: Monster Sigma 2000 interconnects and speaker cables
5. Power conditioning: Tice Power Block II

Recently purchased components:

6. CD front end: Simaudio Moon 260 DT transport, MIT Proline digital interlink, *Berkeley Alpha DAC 2
7. BorderPatrol MB external power supplies which have turbo-charged the amps (greatly contributing to the, as you describe, effortless sound) and removed a lot of electronic noise. That noise removal has tremendously increased the timbral and spatial resolution of the amps.
8. Shunyata Dark Field v2 cable elevators
9. Room treatment: 6 tube traps, 11 Tri-panels, sub trap (ASC)

LL21 · Oct 13, 2014

Great thread...my own experiences:

1. I had Celestion SL6si's and SF Guarneris with Velodyne's to drive scale...it was certainly better, but at the time, my amps were not as powerful, nor my actual setup as well isolated nor room treated.

2. I moved to SF Strads, and found tremendous mid-range scale that made a big change in my mind about where scale lives. I still used the Velodyne DD18 at the time

3. I moved to Wilson X1s...which I have since gone on to modify a bit...and which is still improving and being mod'd a bit. Overall, I learned some things about scale:

- size helps with effortlessness when size is put to good use
- with greater size comes much greater room interaction (ie, problems) and much greater risk of vibration
- the giant-sized solo guitar was never much of a problem, but I did recognize it from time to time when they were first set up...but it was really rare
- over time, as I have reduced and reduced and reduce the vibrations in the system and particularly the speakers...I have noticed that the soundstage becomes more secure, solid, and defined. And those few times when guitars seemed too big, those guitars have now become properly life-sized.

I think the reason in my case was that the vibration was causing the speakers to be unable to hold still the image of the guitar...and at volume...it got worse so playing electric guitar at high volume (while fun), was not always the right scale. But as the vibrations have lessened, the speakers ability to seriously plant/place the sound in just ONE spot...has meant the image shimmer is less, and the image is thus in one small defined space rather than loosely spread throughout a larger space. (ie, no more giant guitar)

This has applied to orchestral as well (Hans Zimmer soundtracks for example), where the orchestra now at first settles in much closer in between the speakers...but then later in the passages actually spreads out BEHIND the speakers when other instruments join in. In other words, the speaker becomes more invisible...it is having an easier time of properly placing everything.

With that placement comes a more appropriate sense of BOTH large-scale (as in a big speaker moves big air) but ALSO proportioned-scale (as in piano seems just as right sized as a flautist).

This has been my own learning experience, and it has been a lot of fun as things have improved thru reducing and reducing distortion...to observe things improve in areas where I was not expecting improvement.

JackD201 · Oct 13, 2014

When we used to live in a condo, I didn't have room for big speakers in the bedroom. I thus had a pretty nice bookshelf collection at the time. I would routinely set these up in rotation in the adjacent Lair's small room. It never failed to make me scratch my head how different the projection was between a bunch of speakers with 6.5" woofers and 1" dome tweeters. It remains to this day, one of the mysteries. I know midbass contouring is part of it but doesn't explain it all. Two of my monitors could fill the room laterally, most just laid out pinpoint accurate stages.

For the large speakers, my reason for going that direction can be summed up in a compound word: midbass. I figure if I'm going to dive into the hobby anyway, I might as well go all the way. A sub will fill in the low frequencies, no doubt but when it comes for that time you feel you want to be just that little bit stupid with the volume control, there's nothing like dedicated mid-bass woofers to keep the balance whatever the SPL. It is unfortunately an expensive luxury. In my experience, many large speakers I've heard have failed to disappear but many of the SAME speakers did. I would thus say that it is set up and room dependent.

A properly set up and gain calibrated large format speaker system should be able to scale a solo instrument to size at normal, safe levels. Image size will shrink or grow depending on the volume as the size and intensity of the summing goes up and down. Stacey Kent should have Mick Jagger's lips only when you know you're playing more loudly than you should.

MadFloyd · Oct 13, 2014

I am writing to add that 'volume' is an important element to the scale equation, but I see that Jack has already touched on that. The other important element is how the music was miked. Close miking is going to sound big unless the system itself limits it.

When I play music at a lower than realistic volume, the image is smaller than real life. I have to play music at 85 db or higher for the scale to get anywhere near believable. I would guess that volume is less important with bigger speakers.

GaryProtein · Oct 13, 2014

MadFloyd said:
. . . I have to play music at 85 db or higher for the scale to get anywhere near believable. I would guess that volume is less important with bigger speakers.

I agree. I have found 85 dB is the beginning of the magic number for realism. Otherwise, you're just listening to soft music regardless of speaker size.

When we have company over and were in the same room as the IRS and the music is at a soft volume so we can talk, there isn't any question it isn't real. It just sounds very good.

Kal Rubinson · Oct 13, 2014

MadFloyd said:
I have to play music at 85 db or higher for the scale to get anywhere near believable. I would guess that volume is less important with bigger speakers.

GaryProtein said:
I agree. I have found 85 dB is the beginning of the magic number for realism. Otherwise, you're just listening to soft music regardless of speaker size.

That's because you guys are channel-deficient.

One can achieve a more realistic sense of scale at a lower energy level with good multichannel recordings and a suitable system.

JackD201 · Oct 13, 2014

Big +1s to Ian and Gary

JackD201 · Oct 13, 2014

Kal Rubinson said:
That's because you guys are channel-deficient. One can achieve a more realistic sense of scale at a lower energy level with good multichannel recordings and a suitable system.

I'm channel deficient in hardware because I'm channel deficient in software

GaryProtein · Oct 13, 2014

Kal Rubinson said:
That's because you guys are channel-deficient. One can achieve a more realistic sense of scale at a lower energy level with good multichannel recordings and a suitable system.

Do you mean at least five channel?

Even with five channels, it still wouldn't sound real if the volume was very low.

Kal Rubinson · Oct 13, 2014

GaryProtein said:
Do you mean at least five channel?
Even with five channels, it still wouldn't sound real if the volume was very low.

Optimum, no, but (1) there aren't any recordings (of significance to me) in more than 5.1 and (2)even with 5.1, the recorded/reproduced ambiance greatly lowers the SPL needed to get to 'real' compared to 2 channel.

(And that's without making any case for the reproduced ambiance actually being more "real" than room ambiance at any level.)

Phelonious Ponk · Oct 14, 2014

A pair of small monitors and a sub can project an image and scale as good as, maybe even better than monolithic floor-standers projecting attack transients from above your head? I'm shocked.

An 85dB minimum for realism? You guys listening to AC/DC? How's that tinnitus?

Tim

MadFloyd · Oct 14, 2014

Phelonious Ponk said:
A pair of small monitors and a sub can project an image and scale as good as, maybe even better than monolithic floor-standers projecting attack transients from above your head? I'm shocked.

An 85dB minimum for realism? You guys listening to AC/DC? How's that tinnitus?

Tim

AC/DC requires more than 85 db imho.

GaryProtein · Oct 14, 2014

Phelonious Ponk said:
A pair of small monitors and a sub can project an image and scale as good as, maybe even better than monolithic floor-standers projecting attack transients from above your head? I'm shocked.

An 85dB minimum for realism? You guys listening to AC/DC? How's that tinnitus?

Tim

85 dB is not the MINIMUM, it is the minimum for average peaks.

Crescendos require significantly more.

Safe woofer/LF volume can be well over 100 dB. The walls and floors can be rattled well before ears will be hurt at very low frequencies.

Phelonious Ponk · Oct 14, 2014

GaryProtein said:
85 dB is not the MINIMUM, it is the minimum for average peaks.

Crescendos require significantly more.

Safe woofer/LF volume can be well over 100 dB. The walls and floors can be rattled well before ears will be hurt at very low frequencies.

Thanks. Gives me a better idea of what you guys mean when you talk about scale. And you're right, it's not the kick drum that will get your ears, it's the electric guitar and the vocals. But with most recordings, if you're pumping enough juice to get LF peaks well over 100 dB, you're getting midrange plenty loud enough to do damage.

Tim

microstrip · Oct 14, 2014

PeterA said:
Recent experience with both large and small systems has me thinking about system capabilities, especially when it comes to scale and the sound of music. (...)

Great thread.

I am very interested on it, as I have owned the same speakers long ago, and also found they could spread a very large sound stage in classical music (Carreras singing Misa Criolla was something very special), but not in music asking for high energy, such as 70's rock or some very demanding brass music from Handel like the Music for the Royal Fireworks.

Can you tell us which recordings were used to check the scale of the system? I see you focus mainly in sound stage dimensions and apparent size of the performers, something I also praise a lot. But scale also needs the feeling of power with some types of music.

GaryProtein · Oct 14, 2014

Phelonious Ponk said:
Thanks. Gives me a better idea of what you guys mean when you talk about scale. And you're right, it's not the kick drum that will get your ears, it's the electric guitar and the vocals. But with most recordings, if you're pumping enough juice to get LF peaks well over 100 dB, you're getting midrange plenty loud enough to do damage.

Tim

In the very low frequency range under 40Hz, down to single digits, you can have very high decibels and not cause damage because the ear isn't very sensitive there to begin with. I forgot the name of the guy the sensitivity curves are named after, but if you google it, you'll see.

see this set of curves: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/eqloud.html

An example of the power of LF high decibels can be seen in the recording "Psalms" by the Turtle Creek Chorale. If the choral parts are played in the 85 dB range, the LF organ notes easily go to 100-105 dB where the paintings rattle on the wall, the floor shakes and it feels like my house is going to come down, and I have doubled up the floor joists. The moose antlers seen in my avatar mounted on the wall above my amplifiers have half inch diameter bolts going into 2x6 studs so I don't have to worry about crashes!

Psalms is one of my recommended recordings. I'm not religious, but you could get religious if you listen to this enough!

PeterA · Oct 14, 2014

microstrip said:
Can you tell us which recordings were used to check the scale of the system? I see you focus mainly in sound stage dimensions and apparent size of the performers, something I also praise a lot. But scale also needs the feeling of power with some types of music.

Perhaps Al M. is reading this thread and can furnish this information.

In my original post I hint at sound stage dimensions, but I'm mostly interested in the size or scale of the image producing the sound, be it a single musician, a quartet or a full orchestra versus the scale of the sound that the image creates in space. In other words, the distinction between the size of the voice, instrument or orchestra and the size of the sound projected by those sources into the listening room. Successful systems, in my view, must be able to reproduce both large and small scale images (the size of the recording venue and the musician/instruments) and also completely fill the listening room with sound. It need not be loud. One focus is image size and the other is room filling sound.

Often systems present either small or large images, but they can't do both. And sound is often left at the plane of the speakers instead of filling the room and surrounding the listener. Al M.'s system the other day did these things very well. I think it's success can be attributed mostly to the way in which his system reacts to or plays with his particular room. Images were appropriately sized while the music was always enveloping. It could also be because his speakers are efficient and very dynamic with appropriate amplification. It could be for some other reason. This is what I'm trying to understand and what I am hoping the thread discusses.

There have been some comments about scale and mid bass energy and a "feeling of power". I don't disagree with this and perhaps it is germane to the topic. I did not feel there was a lack of mid bass energy in the system, but I am trying to understand, and encourage a discussion about, what exactly enables a system to reproduce accurately different image sizes and also to distinguish the image or size of a performer/instrument from the sound it produces.

One example I think of to illustrate this is the sound of a soprano surrounded by an orchestra. The voice and instruments have a small image (depending on the miking), the entire orchestra and stage have a large image and yet in both instances, the sound fills the live hall and should also fill the listening room. A soft sound like a triangle or plucked violin string has a small image yet it should still fill the hall or listening room with sound.

I have heard systems struggle with this portrayal of image size versus sound projection, and the ones that can do it accurately tend to be much more engaging, musical and believable.

PeterA · Oct 14, 2014

Phelonious Ponk said:
A pair of small monitors and a sub can project an image and scale as good as, maybe even better than monolithic floor-standers projecting attack transients from above your head? I'm shocked.

I guess I am just impressed. So do you think large floor standing speakers have trouble with this because of the height of their drivers? Is it really as simple as that?

LL21 · Oct 14, 2014

PeterA said:
Perhaps Al M. is reading this thread and can furnish this information.

In my original post I hint at sound stage dimensions, but I'm mostly interested in the size or scale of the image producing the sound, be it a single musician, a quartet or a full orchestra versus the scale of the sound that the image creates in space. In other words, the distinction between the size of the voice, instrument or orchestra and the size of the sound projected by those sources into the listening room. ...I am trying to understand, and encourage a discussion about, what exactly enables a system to reproduce accurately different image sizes and also to distinguish the image or size of a performer/instrument from the sound it produces.

One example I think of to illustrate this is the sound of a soprano surrounded by an orchestra. The voice and instruments have a small image (depending on the miking), the entire orchestra and stage have a large image and yet in both instances, the sound fills the live hall and should also fill the listening room. A soft sound like a triangle or plucked violin string has a small image yet it should still fill the hall or listening room with sound.

I have heard systems struggle with this portrayal of image size versus sound projection, and the ones that can do it accurately tend to be much more engaging, musical and believable.

I liken what you are describing to a speaker being able to multi-task exceptionally well...basically the cone, membrane, horn is moving air that is supposed to contain lots of information about different instruments, tones, notes, plus air, but also location and size, and keep it all relatively well scale, detailed, nuanced, etc...and then on top of that...when it starts having to reproduce a 71-120 piece full-scale orchestra and chorus, it has to keep all of that perfectly balanced as well.

For me, that is why I think in retrospect I really only began listening to full scale symphonic orchestral in the last 2-3 years only. Before then, I always found that it smeared and mushed and I got fatigue listening to it...I preferred concertos I suspect because at least my ear could concentrate on the main soloist...and allow the background orchestra to be a single piece. But without the soloist, my ears focused on an indiscriminate rush of instruments.

I happen to have reasonably large speakers but for me, the scale thing, the size of instrument thing, the placement thing...all started to take shape in a way I never understood or appreciated before only after I obsessively began focusing on reducing distortion (at first mechanical, vibrational, then grounding, then AC/EMI/RFI)...I think as the cone starts to have less 'stuff' to deal with, it can more easily get down to business with the music and all of its complexity...Emphasize: "I think". I have no special grasp of anything other than my own personal experiences.

In fact, I can say that sometimes, at low volumes at night, the orchestra is clear enough and deep enough, it feels like I could be listening to it thru the door open at the back of the hall. Sometimes more 'real scale sounding' than at higher volumes.

I think probably that is because at lower volume my system has less distortion to contend with...sometimes, its actually when I start to crank it that strings start to smear, or placement and controlled, accurate scale start to suffer.

Al M. · Oct 14, 2014

Peter, thank you very much for your kind comments! I am glad you enjoyed my system as much as you did. I am also pleased that as an analog-only listener you found my system sound natural and not fatiguing. That I admire your system is clear from my comments in your thread in 'Members' Gallery'. Among other things, it has given me a new appreciation of the high resolution of vinyl under optimal circumstances.

I think you have laid out the issues of sound projection very well, and I would welcome some more discussion on this. Among other interesting comments so far, I found Lloyds observations on large speakers and vibration control as well as other noise control particularly striking.

Our Systems, Scale, and the Sound of Music

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

WBF Founding Member

WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

New Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Similar threads