The big sound

mep · Jan 16, 2011

How many people on this forum have a system that is capable of reproducing the "big sound?" And by that I mean that you have a full range system that is loading into a room and gives you a wall-to-wall sound stage. Drums sound like real drums, bass sounds like real bass, singers sound like they are life sized and not a small head singing from on top of your amp. You get the picture.

My thoughts on this are that if you can't reproduce music full range, than you are fooling yourself if you thinking you are hearing what is there to be heard. I really wish that everyone on this forum would list the gear they are listening through as it helps everyone understand your perspective when you post comments on how something sounds on your system. Many people on this forum do list their systems and some don't. It's hard to understand where you are coming from if we don't know what you are listening through.

I get a kick out of people who don't really have a listening room and can't set up anything analog in their system and yet pronounce digital to be the end-all of music reproduction. I think that most guys who are into analog also have their systems set up to play whatever digital has to throw at us. I don't think the opposite is true with the digital lovers. I thnk that many digital lovers can only play back the digits which makes their opinions on analog suspect in my mind. And it doesn't count if you had a cheap table and cartridge many years ago and you sold off your LPs or have a few stored in a closet. Numerous people that know I am into analog have given me their record collections and it is a shame when I look at most of their records and understand why people love digital. So many records look like they were used by a cat for a scratching post or someone ate their lunch on them. They all go to the Goodwill store.

flez007 · Jan 16, 2011

I don't get the very last low portion of bass registers, let's say 45Hz and below.. I am also not getting a very extended dynamic headroom or "gestalt", but pretty close to it, so besides that, my system throws a very credible reproduction of the recording event IMO.

mep · Jan 16, 2011

Flez-Kudos for listing your system in your profile! I have never heard of your speakers before. So you are saying that your speakers can't reproduce the bottom ocatve (20Hz-40Hz) and even 5Hz above that? Do you plan on adding a sub or are you fine with what you have?

mep

cjfrbw · Jan 16, 2011

I have been upgrading my subwoofer array for the first time in a calculated (as opposed to sleazy, haphazard and random) manner. I implemented the Geddes array, and now just added a fourth subwoofer for good measure. It is amazing how much of the music is in those lower octaves. A smooth, un-peaky, powerful bass response makes the whole sound stage larger and clearer, through some kind of psycho-acoustic magic.
I can understand why individuals can be satisfied with a really enchanting midrange, but it does seem that those lower octaves were meant to be heard, and the music is not complete without them.

Kal Rubinson · Jan 16, 2011

Digital or analog is irrelevant. I gave up playing analog because there has not been any new recordings in the past two decades.

DonH50 · Jan 16, 2011

I've already said I have ears of clay -- can't afford the ARC equipment of days gone by, gotta' get the kids through college! Certainly won't claim any of my system matches yours, but here it is:

Pioneer SC-27 AVR
Oppo BDP-83 BD (CD/DVD) player
Samsung 52" LCD TV (can't recall the model off-hand)
Emotiva XPA-2 (L/R) and XPA-5 (center, surounds, rears) amps
Magnepan MG-IIIa (L/R), CC3 (center), MC1 (surrounds, rears) speakers
Two Rythmik F12 subwoofes (in parallel with MG-IIIa's so the AVR sees the L/R as full-range speakers; xovr ~ 45 Hz)
Couple dozen absorption panels strategically placed; calibrated by tweakng MCACC with RPlusD and an Earthworks measurement mic
Average frequency response is within 6 dB 10 Hz to 20 kHz, except I have intentionally shelved the range from perhaps 12 - 20 kHz down about 3 dB.

Reading the last of your post, I see my decades of analog is now worthless since I have not pulled my old TT (with a Magnepan UniPivot arm) out yet, and did indeed sell most of my 3000+ records years ago (have only about 300 or so left in storage), (gasp!) actually enjoy my CDs. Well, some of them, anyway. I lived through the time when CDs were introduced; they have come along way since then. At least, IMO. - Don

DWR · Jan 16, 2011

Great thread mep, I am as close as I probably ever will be to having a system that plays full range. Using the multiple sub approach has brought me the best bass response I have ever had in my room, while my main speakers cover the rest of the frequency spectrum very well. My system is a combination 2 channel and HT system using both tubes and solid state and I also enjoy digital as well as analog, I do not have the financial means to use the real high end gear that a lot of members here do, but what I do have gives me great listening pleasure.

Dan

rbbert · Jan 16, 2011

I still have my Magnepan Uni-Pivot arm as well!! But I'm not a big fan of LP; if I had access to high-quality reasonably priced reel tapes that would be another story.

Interesting system, mep. Have you calculated your percentage investment in front-end, amplification and speakers as discussed in another thread here? I suspect you may have one of the lowest percentages (by system expense) in speakers of members of this forum.

DWR · Jan 16, 2011

CJ, can you give us your impressions as to going to that 4th sub and what differences you found from using 3 subs? I also use the Geddes multi sub approach and am using 3 subs at the moment.

Dan

MylesBAstor · Jan 16, 2011

rbbert said:
I still have my Magnepan Uni-Pivot arm as well!! But I'm not a big fan of LP; if I had access to high-quality reasonably priced reel tapes that would be another story.

Interesting system, mep. Have you calculated your percentage investment in front-end, amplification and speakers as discussed in another thread here? I suspect you may have one of the lowest percentages (by system expense) in speakers of members of this forum.

I think the ratio only holds true for lower priced systems. It really falls apart with more expensive systems as the front end and electronics begin to dominate the picture eg. my speakers are only 6% of the cost while the front end is 26% and electronics are 41%. Even if I doubled the price of my speakers (say from 10 to 20K), it still wouldn't have a huge impact on the system's breakdown.

fas42 · Jan 16, 2011

Okay, all you fellows with Big Mutha drivers, how would you rate your systems with, say, ZZ Top - Afterburner, as regards the quality of the "punch your head in" sound impact?

Frank

RBFC · Jan 16, 2011

Of course, personal attacks are against the WBF terms of service. I didn't see anyone named in the original post, so no foul.

Edited to add: After consulting with the WBF team, members are under no obligation to list their gear.

Thanks,

Lee

flez007 · Jan 16, 2011

mep said:
Flez-Kudos for listing your system in your profile! I have never heard of your speakers before. So you are saying that your speakers can't reproduce the bottom ocatve (20Hz-40Hz) and even 5Hz above that? Do you plan on adding a sub or are you fine with what you have?

mep

mep - I might add a sub later (well, actually two subs), I am not in that kind of hurry to do it now thou...

JackD201 · Jan 16, 2011

I'd say I get big sound on big sounding recordings. I haven't measured yet but I think I am getting true 20Hz on organ recordings thanks to a pair of built in 1KW subs in my speakers. The room is also 36 feet long which is greater than half of a 20Hz wavelength so that helps. The radiation pattern of my speakers as set up are full range super cardiod thanks to the rear firing ribbon. Set up this way they provide ambient fill up to the front top corners where panels suck up the excess. You can see the panels in the pics in my system page.

That said, I think one can get "big sound" with loudspeaker bass response of only 35Hz to 45Hz when aided with boundary reinforcement or with a bit of a midbass hump built in. That introduces their own problems but if big sound is all we're talking about then that's ok. IMO bass response is part of the recipe and dispersion is another. I have a pair of Duevel planets for background music in my open kitchen/dining room for background music. They are as humpy in the midbass as anything when pushed hard but when it's party time they can fill the room evenly. No pin point imaging here but individual instruments are easy to identify if not localize.

DWR · Jan 16, 2011

Hi Frank, well I don't really crank it up too often but when I do Afterburner isn't one of my favorites but LaGrange is and at 101dB at the listening seat you feel the bass inside yourself, thats the best way I can describe it. Before I used the multiple sub arrangement it sounded nothing like this.

Dan

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 16, 2011

I really wish that everyone on this forum would list the gear they are listening through as it helps everyone understand your perspective when you post comments on how something sounds on your system.

My third, post-retirement career is in the industry that feeds this hobby, mep. I can walk into work tomorrow afternoon and listen to a system very much like yours, because I sell Definitive Technology. I can push a few buttons and be listening to a system a lot like Gregg's, because I also sell Martin Logans. My first career put me in studios every week, listening to voices and instruments and microphones and monitoring systems. The sum of those experiences forms my perspective on audio, not the equipment list that is currently in my house. Besides, in the often very polarized discussions that happen on audiophile boards, system profiles are used to dismiss opinions as often as they're used to place them in a context that is probably not accurate anyway. As we've discussed recently, I choose to listen in the near field, but that doesn't mean I don't know the "big sound," and its advantages well. I do. I know exactly what I'm missing in near field listening, and exactly what I'm gaining. That's my perspective, here's my kit:

Hard drive full of lossless files > MacBook Pro > Trends digital converter (usb to spdf) > AVi ADM 9.1s.

Tim

fas42 · Jan 16, 2011

Thanks, DWR, what I was specifically referring to there with Afterburner is the extreme "bittiness" of the sound, I am not quite sure what the right term would be. Unfortunately I am not familiar with LaGrange, so no cross reference there. It's just with Afterburner, the bass has a tremendous sharpness and depth that "punches you in the head", kicks you hard in the guts with short sharp jabs. Very effective when you're in the mood ... anyone else relate to this?

Frank

Mark (Basspig) Weiss · Jan 16, 2011

Over here at the Bass Pig's Lair, the emphasis is on big, on an almost interplanetary scale. My goal was accurate reproduction of everything from a violin solo to a mortar shell exploding. With a 16' wide wall of speakers, a big sound stage is a given. Sonic Holography makes it more focused, and sometimes even bigger.
But most folks don't take me seriously. I didn't spend over a hundred grand on my system.

Old Listener · Jan 16, 2011

An offensive post

mep said:
How many people on this forum have a system that is capable of reproducing the "big sound?" And by that I mean that you have a full range system that is loading into a room and gives you a wall-to-wall sound stage. Drums sound like real drums, bass sounds like real bass, singers sound like they are life sized and not a small head singing from on top of your amp. You get the picture.
...
My thoughts on this are that if you can't reproduce music full range, than you are fooling yourself if you thinking you are hearing what is there to be heard.
...
I get a kick out of people who don't really have a listening room and can't set up anything analog in their system and yet pronounce digital to be the end-all of music reproduction.
...
I thnk that many digital lovers can only play back the digits which makes their opinions on analog suspect in my mind.
...
and it is a shame when I look at most of their records and understand why people love digital. So many records look like they were used by a cat for a scratching post or someone ate their lunch on them.

mep,

I find your post to be offensive. You suggest that anyone who doesn't have a system producing a "big sound" can't have a valid opinion about analog versus digital. You then add the thought that anyone who doesn't have analog sources in their system now is also disqualified. You go on to assert that if someone quit using analog sources without having an expensive turntable and cartridge, their opinion is not valid.

You then ascribe people's loving digital to their treating their LPs badly. Does that apply to people on this forum who now prefer digital sources?

---
I read people's posts and decide whether they know what they are talking about and whether they reason correctly from that knowledge. If they don't get it right in their posts, I really don't care how expensive their gear is.

---
I am quite willing to respect other people preference for LPs and reel-to-reel tape. I would appreciate being allowed to express my own preference for digital source material without receiving audiophile putdowns. If you have pertinent facts and valid reasoning to offer, bring them.

Bill

JackD201 · Jan 16, 2011

Mark (basspig), I take you seriously. I'm just afraid your bass output might alter my body's molecular structure

The big sound

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Technical Expert

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Addicted To Best

WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor

WBF Founding Member

New Member

New Member

Addicted To Best

Well-Known Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member

Similar threads