What speaker for what music?

[DaveyF]

For the last few days, I have been attending various live orchestral and band performances. Sitting listening to the wonderful 'live' music, it occurred to me that we need to consider more strongly the type of music that we are trying to portray in our systems; which leads to the importance of the type of speaker that we need to reproduce it.
On the large band pieces with brass and wind instruments, the large multi-driver speaker that can move large amounts of air would seem to be the way to go, IMHO...read also the horn type speaker and the large Scaena type speaker with plenty of bass wallop. OTOH, listening to the orchestral pieces with strings, the smaller more defined speaker, like my GH's or the Magico's may be a better choice. I am beginning to believe that there is no speaker that can really be expected to do both mediums perfectly... The BIG band piece and the small orchestral. IMO, the smaller speakers can never hope to portray a true rendition of a kettle drum, as an example, OTOH, the BIG speaker most likely cannot really deliver the 'precision' ( for want of a better word) of the monitor type speaker. (which is needed for the string reproduction and precise imaging on the stage of the smaller instruments). All of this has to be compounded with the size and shape of the listening room.....a large room being of paramount importance to try and reproduce the scale and energy of the hall. A small room for the intimacy of the surroundings and of the acute ability to hear the smallest detail in the strings.
At the end of the day, I guess we pick our poisons..
What choice have you made? What compromise are you living with?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Great post, Davey. I listen to small monitors, at close range, in a small space. They've done very well for me in a moderately-sized living room as well, at a listening distance of 8 - 10 feet. Though I've never tried it, I assume they would be challenged by a very large room. I'm an imaging/detail junkie who listens to mostly small ensemble/intimate music, so there's not a lot of compromise there for me. If I had a small, well-implemented sub, the compromises would mostly disappear for my use. I understand the limitations of my system, but I very rarely confront them. The synergy is between system/space/listener.

Tim

 

[JackD201]

The synergy is between system/space/listener.

Hey! I really like that!

I think the biggest factor that differentiates big rigs and precise compact speakers is the appropriate listening distance for each type of loudspeaker. The trade offs can be quantified by physics. Given that levels drop as distance increases for all types and that every frequency has different wavelengths the tradeoffs become quite obvious. The farther you go the greater the ratio of reflected to direct sound and even the direct sound diminishes. The closer you go with large speakers the less the long wavelengths can be felt viscerally while also losing coherence. With my desktop actives, the stage collapses as soon as I go past 5 feet in distance. So coherence vs distance can be an issue with small frequency limited loudspeakers as well in large part I believe due to speaker to speaker distance.

Can a system do both? I do believe pinpoint imaging and detail along with visceral impact can be had at midfield and even far field but the work on the room as well as system tuning is something for only the most obsessed amongst us. I feel I've succeeded not perfectly but to a degree that satisfies my personal standards. I've also witnessed the same with other meticulously set up room/systems with large speakers from Jadis' Maggies to Steve's X-2s to Jim's 7ft tall VR-11s to IRS systems I've experienced. The saying is that bass is the most difficult thing to get right and that mids and highs are relatively easy as pie. In my experience, this is very true.

For those not inclined or interested to take on the challenges that high output systems require, Davey's assumptions are logical and utterly practical. Get the most out of your favorite music and go for "happily livable" for the rest.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Hey! I really like that!

I think the biggest factor that differentiates big rigs and precise compact speakers is the appropriate listening distance for each type of loudspeaker. The trade offs can be quantified by physics. Given that levels drop as distance increases for all types and that every frequency has different wavelengths the tradeoffs become quite obvious. The farther you go the greater the ratio of reflected to direct sound and even the direct sound diminishes. The closer you go with large speakers the less the long wavelengths can be felt viscerally while also losing coherence. With my desktop actives, the stage collapses as soon as I go past 5 feet in distance. So coherence vs distance can be an issue with small frequency limited loudspeakers as well in large part I believe due to speaker to speaker distance.

Can a system do both? I do believe pinpoint imaging and detail along with visceral impact can be had at midfield and even far field but the work on the room as well as system tuning is something for only the most obsessed amongst us. I feel I've succeeded not perfectly but to a degree that satisfies my personal standards. I've also witnessed the same with other meticulously set up room/systems with large speakers from Jadis' Maggies to Steve's X-2s to Jim's 7ft tall VR-11s to IRS systems I've experienced. The saying is that bass is the most difficult thing to get right and that mids and highs are relatively easy as pie. In my experience, this is very true.

For those not inclined or interested to take on the challenges that high output systems require, Davey's assumptions are logical and utterly practical. Get the most out of your favorite music and go for "happily livable" for the rest.

If I might offer a suggestion I don't think it's possible to get the midrange/upper octaves correct unless the bass is right. Especially imaging and sense of space.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

If I might offer a suggestion I don't think it's possible to get the midrange/upper octaves correct unless the bass is right. Especially imaging and sense of space.

I've heard this one before, but a whole world full of desktop studio monitors, in which even some pretty modest examples image much better than most big "full range" speaker systems, denies it. "Sense of space," however, is another matter. It is such a fungible concept compared to the precision of horizontal plane imaging, or even the front to back placement created by the recording and the system's dynamic abilities to properly render it, that it's almost impossible to discuss it and even know if we're talking about the same thing. But FWIW, yes, good bass does a lot for what I personally think of as a "sense of space."

Tim

 

[microstrip]

(...)
"Sense of space," however, is another matter. It is such a fungible concept compared to the precision of horizontal plane imaging, or even the front to back placement created by the recording and the system's dynamic abilities to properly render it, that it's almost impossible to discuss it and even know if we're talking about the same thing. But FWIW, yes, good bass does a lot for what I personally think of as a "sense of space."

Tim

Just because it is difficult to address in stereo does not reduce its importance or make it non-existent. F. Toole defines it as

Envelopment and the sense of space: Also called listener envelopment (LEV), this is the impression of being in a specific acoustical space. It is perhaps the single most important perceived element distinguishing truly good concert halls. In music recordings and movies, it is arguably the greatest improvement contributed by multichannel audio.

But he also states that a proper setup with the proper recording in stereo can be very satisfying in this sense,

 

[JackD201]

If I might offer a suggestion I don't think it's possible to get the midrange/upper octaves correct unless the bass is right. Especially imaging and sense of space.

I'm of the thinking that to get things "correct" one has to get pretty much everything right. Having said that, as trade off's go, I guess I belong to the no bass is better than bad bass camp. Omission's, for me anyway, are a lot easier to listen past than gross anomalies like boomy, ill-defined bass.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Just because it is difficult to address in stereo does not reduce its importance or make it non-existent.

And I'm not arguing that it is either unimportant or non-existent, or even "difficult to address in stereo." What I find difficult is coherent conversations on the subject, because there are so many misconceptions related to it. I have seen it ill-defined and misunderstood by the audiophile audience more often than not. Most conversations about sound stage are really about a sense of "bigness" for lack of a better word - height, breadth, depth - and speak of components, speakers or the room expanding the sound stage in the listening room, not of rendering a more accurate reproduction of the space the recording was made in. The latter is what Toole is referring to above, I believe, and I would agree that in the very rare cases of live recordings that capture such an ambience, it's reproduction is important. Such recordings are so rare, however, that I find it an easy compromise to make. I'm actually more interested in illusion, in the space I'm playing the music out into, my room, and the ambience that is muted or enhanced by the interaction between my speakers and that room. And that is another unavoidable compromise, because the speaker/room configuration that will give you the biggest, liveliest ambience will inevitably give you a somewhat blurred image. Both are false constructs, so it is completely subjective. A bigger "sound stage" isn't better, it is simply a choice of illusions. What I don't think is subjective, and heartily disagree with is:

I don't think it's possible to get the midrange/upper octaves correct unless the bass is right.

I think you get the midrange/upper octaves correct by getting the midrange/upper octaves correct, period. I think room ambience is enhanced by low frequency extension, but unless it is very well controlled and kept out of the way, I think it actually diminishes midrange/upper octave correctness.

YMMV.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

I'm of the thinking that to get things "correct" one has to get pretty much everything right. Having said that, as trade off's go, I guess I belong to the no bass is better than bad bass camp. Omission's, for me anyway, are a lot easier to listen past than gross anomalies like boomy, ill-defined bass.

Just to play devils advocate, absence of bass allows the ear to gravitate towards the upper octaves eg. giving a much brighter presentation (the obvious example for me is the ML CLS). Also, I don't think can get the midrange harmonics, etc correct if the bass is missing. Too much bass and then everything becomes muddy and the midrange loses transparency among other things

 

[MylesBAstor]

A bigger "sound stage" isn't better, it is simply a choice of illusions.

Tim

No the size of the "soundstage" should vary from recording to recording and to the first approx. dependent upon miking technique. Not only that, the stage should be different eg. chamber music vs. orchestral music. Chamber music should be "closer up" while orchestral should give a more distant perspective.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No the size of the "soundstage" should vary from recording to recording and to the first approx. dependent upon miking technique. Not only that, the stage should be different eg. chamber music vs. orchestral music. Chamber music should be "closer up" while orchestral should give a more distant perspective.

This might simply be semantics, Myles. In my view what varies, often rather dramatically, from recording to recording is imaging. And that includes the front to back depth of the image. Whether or not it is closer up for chamber music than it is for orchestral music is entirely dependent upon the recording technique. And this imaging can be as, or even more nuanced, present and precise in the near field as it can when listening to large systems in large rooms.

The "sound stage" referred to in the broader audiophile discussion is something else altogether. It must be, because its expansion appears, at least according to the discussions I've observed, to be related to upgrading electronic components even more than it is to recording technique. And this "sound stage" never gets smaller, or if it does, it is not deemed a good thing. Really, take it all seriously and one would expect that after a lifetime of tweaking and upgrading, audiophiles must walk into their listening rooms, put on some music, and be confronted be pianos the size of McMansions.

Tim

 

[audioguy]

I am beginning to believe that there is no speaker that can really be expected to do both mediums perfectly... T

I don't see it that way nor does my experience lead me to that conclusion. A well designed speaker in a great room has the ability to do both. Forgetting for the moment that no speaker is perfect, I've heard Dunlavy VI's (in a purpose built room -- not mine) that could portray musical accuracy for small ensemble music, soloists (accapela) and large scale orchestras incredbily well and with delicacy when required. I have heard the Scaena do the same thing (and Marty's Pipe Dreams with his well integrated non-Pipedream subs), and a pair of the large Maggies with well integrated subs, and the large Magicos and both the current and the original Wilson Grand Slamms, and a pair of ginormous Infinities (or maybe they were Genesis). I suspect there are more.

Just my $0.02

 

[Steve Williams]

I don't see it that way nor does my experience lead me to that conclusion. A well designed speaker in a great room has the ability to do both. Forgetting for the moment that no speaker is perfect, I've heard Dunlavy VI's (in a purpose built room -- not mine) that could portray musical accuracy for small ensemble music, soloists (accapela) and large scale orchestras incredbily well and with delicacy when required. I have heard the Scaena do the same thing (and Marty's Pipe Dreams with his well integrated non-Pipedream subs), and a pair of the large Maggies with well integrated subs, and the large Magicos and both the current and the original Wilson Grand Slamms, and a pair of ginormous Infinities (or maybe they were Genesis). I suspect there are more.

Just my $0.02

I also agree with Chuck

 

[JackD201]

Just to play devils advocate, absence of bass allows the ear to gravitate towards the upper octaves eg. giving a much brighter presentation (the obvious example for me is the ML CLS). Also, I don't think can get the midrange harmonics, etc correct if the bass is missing. Too much bass and then everything becomes muddy and the midrange loses transparency among other things

I agree in the sense that harmonics of many instruments reach below the central tone so being cut off at some point leaves the note incomplete. If grading correctness were like grading an essay, the student without full range would still get points more than enough points to pass, get a good grade even. Probably just not the complete points for an A+. The student with full range but lousy bass just might get a failing grade because that lousy bass may be akin to some sentence so wrong anything correct written before it is wiped out. LOL.

I've come to experience that the quality of some higher register notes often go under appreciated with the absence of lower frequency information especially when they have lower octave counterpoints. A good example are snare and kick drum hits. Even in mind numbingly repetitive genres it's hard to appreciate one without the other. Notice how I send under appreciated. With no lower bass the snares are just ignored for the most part. With lousy bass, the drone just distracts you from everything else. With good bass you appreciate things like the crispness, timing and deftness of touch so much more easily.

 

[FrantzM]

No the size of the "soundstage" should vary from recording to recording and to the first approx. dependent upon miking technique. Not only that, the stage should be different eg. chamber music vs. orchestral music. Chamber music should be "closer up" while orchestral should give a more distant perspective.

Happy Holydays ! I agree with Myles !!

I think there is lot more to it. I believe that we audiophiles discovered midrange somewhere after the Baxandall correctors. You remember the bass and treble buttons. We got rid of these in our (audiophile gear. No self-respecting audiophile gear would have Bass and treble corrections … although ... Heresy! , in some instances we replace these by components costing a lot which accomplish the same ... ... Back to the discussion.
What however seems to drive a lot of the music is the lower midrange however or/and upper-bass a regions that seems easy to reproduce , doesn't require a lot of power or cone surface or even displacement ; The region from 200 Hz to say a 1000. It is more important than we think and most musics from most parts of the world seem to need to sound realistic.
And most speakers are deficient there… Most rooms are also deficient there, in that region. Small speakers can work well in this region… they may however lack the power to convey adequate dynamic in that region (and the bottom end on which I will come back later) … It seems to be the reason why some mini-monitors, even couped with subwoofers do not do very well reproducing “big” music..Not for a lack of overall SPL but rather for a lack of articulation, power, choose your word in this region. Some mini-monitors of course doit very well almost to the point of fooling the listener into thinking that more bass would not be necessary. I did find the old Sonus Faber Electa Amator to do this trick neatly… I didn’t think the same about the Extreme with which I lived a few weeks , thinking it would do better than the Electa Amator, maybe the Extrema was trying to do too much in the low bass (under 100 Hz) scarifying the upper bass in that.
Big speakers systems are essentially small ones mounted over a large woofer or woofers system. Large speakers can dedicate one or more drivers to The Region.. In Large speakers, there is usually enough drivers to allow them to have serious output in the 200 to 1000 Hz region … Let’s call it the realism region … These large speakers are usually 3-way or more .. They cover this region usually with a dedicated driver , often capable of much more (both in the treble and in the low bass) this driver can work in its most linear region … I hasten to say that I do not accept the concept of “slow” woofer because of its diameter and cone mass .. An 18 inch is capable of good midrange .. directivity come into play and that’s another story … but an 18 inch , many 18 inches, can be great performers up to 1500 Hz and even more …back to the discussion ,,,, Large speakers from most manufacturers have drivers that reproduce the region under discussion accurately and that to me is where we must look at …
All that to tell you that I don’t believe in the concept of speakers for a given music. Not really. It is true that budget considerations are there. But … There is also a point of diminishing return. A lot of real estate and volume hence cost is allocated to reproduce the bass… it does seem to me there isa point at which it no longer makes sense to go for the last Hz within a given cabinet… Either split it as in the Genesis, Nola or Gryphon or actually split it with a large speaker capable of serious bass augmented with multiple subs..
That is my theory and I think I have some objective data behind it. As for the observation. I have heard large speakers that out-small small speakers. Recently .. Steve X-2 were the first to blow me away in this regard but I have heard some Rokport, Magico, Wilson, Avalon and Scaena to convince me that what small speakers do larer can do it too and better.

 

[FrantzM]

I don't see it that way nor does my experience lead me to that conclusion. A well designed speaker in a great room has the ability to do both. Forgetting for the moment that no speaker is perfect, I've heard Dunlavy VI's (in a purpose built room -- not mine) that could portray musical accuracy for small ensemble music, soloists (accapela) and large scale orchestras incredbily well and with delicacy when required. I have heard the Scaena do the same thing (and Marty's Pipe Dreams with his well integrated non-Pipedream subs), and a pair of the large Maggies with well integrated subs, and the large Magicos and both the current and the original Wilson Grand Slamms, and a pair of ginormous Infinities (or maybe they were Genesis). I suspect there are more.

Just my $0.02

+1 I didn't want to toot my own horn .. My MG 20.1 with subs could sound as small as any mini-monitor one would want to throw against them and I have heard some of the speakers Audiouy mentioned do the same trick including the mighty Genesis 1.1 (No speaker system I have heard yet, approach these in bass dynamics) ...

 

[microstrip]

(...) The latter is what Toole is referring to above, I believe, and I would agree that in the very rare cases of live recordings that capture such an ambience, it's reproduction is important. Such recordings are so rare, however, that I find it an easy compromise to make. I'm actually more interested in illusion, in the space I'm playing the music out into, my room, and the ambience that is muted or enhanced by the interaction between my speakers and that room. And that is another unavoidable compromise, because the speaker/room configuration that will give you the biggest, liveliest ambience will inevitably give you a somewhat blurred image. Both are false constructs, so it is completely subjective. A bigger "sound stage" isn't better, it is simply a choice of illusions.

Many studio recordings have "the sense of space" - it was added by the sound engineers expertise. It is something I find fascinating in sound reproduction. IMHO, the sense of space is not created only by image and soundstage. Sound decays, the independence and simultaneously the cross connection of some instruments are part of it.

BTW, my analysis is strongly biased versus chamber, orchestral and vocal classical recordings.

 

[Steve Williams]

+1 I didn't want to toot my own horn .. My MG 20.1 with subs could sound as small as any mini-monitor one would want to throw against them and I have heard some of the speakers Audiouy mentioned do the same trick including the mighty Genesis 1.1 (No speaker system I have heard yet, approach these in bass dynamics) ...

Frantz do you have any interest in the soon to be released (rumor has it) Maggi 20.7

 

[DaveyF]

Great post, Davey. I listen to small monitors, at close range, in a small space. They've done very well for me in a moderately-sized living room as well, at a listening distance of 8 - 10 feet. Though I've never tried it, I assume they would be challenged by a very large room. I'm an imaging/detail junkie who listens to mostly small ensemble/intimate music, so there's not a lot of compromise there for me. If I had a small, well-implemented sub, the compromises would mostly disappear for my use. I understand the limitations of my system, but I very rarely confront them. The synergy is between system/space/listener.

Tim

Tim, This is my basic point.... I do believe that IF one were to put the smaller speaker, like we both enjoy, into a very large room, then the imaging/detail and intimacy would diminish. ( Possibly to a point wherein we no longer enjoy the presentation). I too really enjoy the imaging and detail that the closer perspective allows. ( Particularly so in the small jazz ensemble, small orchestral piece rendition). What has struck me so forcefully in listening to the 'live' bands and orchestra's in a large auditorium, is the fact that both aspects of the sound are produced so spectacularly. No system I have ever heard can go close to doing both.....The large speaker system is certainly more adept at attempting to reproduce the sound of a hall and the ambience and reverb of same; BUT this requires a BIG room, which I am now beginning to think precludes the intimacy and detail reproduction that we enjoy so much in our smaller rooms.
Sorry Steve, BUT I really do believe that compared to the real thing, there are simply compromises that we are making in our choice of speaker and room.

 

[Steve Williams]

I think you are somewhat correct but speaking now only for "my speakers" I know that Dave Wilson makes frequent comments that the X-2's s were designed to image very small soundstage as well as very large ones