“Physicality” in sound: my novel theory of its basis.

[Anton D]

I never cease to be amazed by how a good bottom end can convey so much sense of space, beyond the expected bass notes themselves.

I'd put that in the physicality part, but physical sense of space rather than impact, so to speak.

 

[Ron Resnick]

different techniques in speaker design more or less correspond to the degree of this sense of physicality.

Again, what is your take on the sonic physicality of the bigger MBLs?

 

[Duke LeJeune]

Thanks, Duke. When I think about physicality, I mean you literally walk out of the room...go upstairs and listen. And if you think the power of the system makes it feel like there is a jazz trio or solo sonata player through the wall or downstairs, then the system has physicality. Often, beautiful renditions of music with nuances and subtleties even soundstage, do NOT have that level of physicality and power to convince the instruments are in the next room. That is what I am focusing on as a next target.

Got it - thanks for explaining!

In this case, does reflection matter?

YES, the reflections DO still matter! The time gap between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections that I spoke of earlier does not matter, but the tonal balance still matters.

From outside the room (assuming no direct line-of-sight to the speakers) all you can hear are reflections. If the tonal balance of these reflections is wrong, then the tonal balance you hear from another room will also be wrong. Usually there is not enough top-end energy present in the sound that comes through the open doorway for the tonal balance to be realistic. Usually what you hear from another room will be too dull-sounding.

The other thing you can hear from another room is the dynamic contrast. Obviously the sound has to be loud enough for there to be a realistic amount of dynamic contrast, and this is something big speakers generally do much better than small speakers.

I presume not...and imagine it is genuinely more about the system's ability to drive the power of the music to an air pressure/displacement level that through the wall or floor/ceiling enables a listener to wonder...system or instrument?

Yes, the sheer air-moving capability of the speaker system matters. It's not going to sound like there is live music happening in the other room if the sound is too quiet and the peaks too muted to convey emotion.

As an industry expert and designer of speakers particularly, does that make sense to you? For me, when I heard CLXs, I found the transparency beautiful...but when I went back to Wilsons which did not have the alacrity or transparency or coherence, I found they massively DID have a lot more power/body/density which mattered much more to me.

That makes sense to me.

 

[Anton D]

It is driving me crazy trying to find the data or the quotes, but Jon Atkinson was talking about the "live in the next room" phenomenon and commented that he found it to correlate with excess in-room brightness (overly elevated treble response.)

Has anyone else found this to be accurate, to their ears?

 

[Duke LeJeune]

It is driving me crazy trying to find the data or the quotes, but Jon Atkinson was talking about the "live in the next room" phenomenon and commented that he found it to correlate with excess in-room brightness (overly elevated treble response.)

Has anyone else found this to be accurate, to their ears?

This would be true with conventional speakers whose radiation patterns are considerably narrower at high frequencies than across the rest of the spectrum. In order for the tonal balance to be correct from outside the room, the narrow-pattern high frequency energy would have to be louder than the rest of the spectrum. Yuck.

But Jon Atkinson's observation might not be true of almost-conventional speakers which use a rear-firing tweeter to correct the power response in the top octave(s), without boosting the on-axis highs.

And it would not be true of speakers that are constant directivity or nearly so, which includes MBLs, Sound Labs, many horn systems, and in particular corner horn systems.

So listen in the room FIRST, and if the speaker system sounds good from normal listening locations, THEN you can see whether it still sounds good from outside the room. If it doesn't sound good from normal listening locations, don't waste your time.

When the speaker system sounds good from BOTH inside and outside the room, that's an indication of the reflections sounding very much like the direct sound, which in turn is (ime) a predictor of long-term fatigue-free listening.

 

[PeterA]

This would be true with conventional speakers whose radiation patterns are considerably narrower at high frequencies than across the rest of the spectrum. In order for the tonal balance to be correct from outside the room, the narrow-pattern high frequency energy would have to be louder than the rest of the spectrum. Yuck.

But Jon Atkinson's observation might not be true of almost-conventional speakers which use a rear-firing tweeter to correct the power response in the top octave(s), without boosting the on-axis highs.

And it would not be true of speakers that are constant directivity or nearly so, which includes MBLs, Sound Labs, many horn systems, and in particular corner horn systems.

So listen in the room FIRST, and if the speaker system sounds good from normal listening locations, THEN you can see whether it still sounds good from outside the room. If it doesn't sound good from normal listening locations, don't waste your time.

When the speaker system sounds good from BOTH inside and outside the room, that's an indication of the reflections sounding very much like the direct sound, which in turn is (ime) a predictor of long-term fatigue-free listening.

Duke, I have high-quality corner horn speakers and your comments match very well my observations both in and out of the room. I have a good sense of physicality from the presentation of my system in the room.

 

[tima]

Wow - listening outside the box!

 

[LL21]

This would be true with conventional speakers whose radiation patterns are considerably narrower at high frequencies than across the rest of the spectrum. In order for the tonal balance to be correct from outside the room, the narrow-pattern high frequency energy would have to be louder than the rest of the spectrum. Yuck.

But Jon Atkinson's observation might not be true of almost-conventional speakers which use a rear-firing tweeter to correct the power response in the top octave(s), without boosting the on-axis highs.

And it would not be true of speakers that are constant directivity or nearly so, which includes MBLs, Sound Labs, many horn systems, and in particular corner horn systems.

So listen in the room FIRST, and if the speaker system sounds good from normal listening locations, THEN you can see whether it still sounds good from outside the room. If it doesn't sound good from normal listening locations, don't waste your time.

When the speaker system sounds good from BOTH inside and outside the room, that's an indication of the reflections sounding very much like the direct sound, which in turn is (ime) a predictor of long-term fatigue-free listening.

Thank you! This is super interesting and great to read and learn.

I think Wilson has long had a rear-firing tweeter (since 1994 with the first X1/Grand SLAMM which we owned for many years). While I am not a big treble person...my system for some might even be a tad rolled in the upper treble...I do not hear much difference between in-room and out of room treble but I will check next time.

Meanwhile, the scale/weight of music in and out of room both sound very good to me and surprisingly consistent with each other.

Sounds like I may actually be on a decent track for the next move...perhaps some time in 2026 we will actually trial dual subs or an upgrade to see what happens.

 

[LL21]

Got it - thanks for explaining!



YES, the reflections DO still matter! The time gap between the direct sound and the strong onset of reflections that I spoke of earlier does not matter, but the tonal balance still matters.

From outside the room (assuming no direct line-of-sight to the speakers) all you can hear are reflections. If the tonal balance of these reflections is wrong, then the tonal balance you hear from another room will also be wrong. Usually there is not enough top-end energy present in the sound that comes through the open doorway for the tonal balance to be realistic. Usually what you hear from another room will be too dull-sounding.

The other thing you can hear from another room is the dynamic contrast. Obviously the sound has to be loud enough for there to be a realistic amount of dynamic contrast, and this is something big speakers generally do much better than small speakers.



Yes, the sheer air-moving capability of the speaker system matters. It's not going to sound like there is live music happening in the other room if the sound is too quiet and the peaks too muted to convey emotion.



That makes sense to me.

Thank you! This is super helpful. Both in and out of room sound is quite similar and as you say elsewhere, I wonder on treble whether the rear-firing tweeter has something to do with this. Will continue in 2026 to look into subs to move air and focus on effortless, low distortion midbass headroom.

 

[Vinicius297]

Sorry for the delay in this reply. Just to clarify, to me the crucial factor in our perception of “live” versus reproduced sound is that with live, the sense that it’s being generated by a physical object is primary and intuitive. We don’t have to think about it; we just know. And obviously, it’s not an illusion. There is a physical object “causing” our intuition. And with reproduced sound, the closest facsimile to this aspect of original sound is not primarily in frequency response or low distortion or transient response or any of the traditional desiderata of “hi-fi”, but is in the fundamental way air is moved from a point.
The alternative way, with air moved across a wide plain, always, at least to me, betrays any illusion that I’m listening to live sound. It’s clearly reproduced even if it has every other virtue of high-fidelity reproduction. And I believe that the clear and unmistakable difference between “horn” and “electrostatic” sound is more attributable to the polarized ways they generate sound than in any of the traditional ways of “measuring” their performance.
As for what the Trinnov Optimizer does, well, it gives you virtually complete carte blanche to fiddle with just about as many measurable aspects of sound as you want. Apart from distortion. For example, it allows you to determine how many cycles of reflected sound from 0.5 to 8 in the frequency response, phase, and impulse response at the listening position. It just does incredible things, and I couldn’t be without it. It transforms the sound to a level I never conceived was possible.

 

[LL21]

Interesting observation...could not comment if true or not, but I can say that the few electrostats I have heard do create ghostly-in-the-room imagery soundstage wise...but not the corporeal power of the instrument in your room of some big cone speakers that I found I personally valued more highly than the soundstaging realism. And I think the AG Trio G3 does that same corporeal power thing though I would need to go back to listen to be sure.

 

[Rexp]

Is physical sound the same as solid imaging within a clealy defined acoustic space in this discussion?
Very few hifi speakers deliver this, ATC 20T's are the best I've heard, some panels like Quad 63 are ok, never heard a horn that does it but that's the trade off, do you want effortless dynamics or great imaging.

 

[LL21]

Is physical sound the same as solid imaging within a clealy defined acoustic space in this discussion?
Very few hifi speakers deliver this, ATC 20T's are the best I've heard, some panels like Quad 63 are ok, never heard a horn that does it but that's the trade off, do you want effortless dynamics or great imaging.

Speaking only for myself, no. I prioritize the density and power of the note…not the sound staging. In fact, sound staging for me is probably one of the least important things and I rarely focus on it when auditioning. I focus on the equivalent of being able to walk next door and hear the music and think the power and depth of the notes feel like they had real instrument level power. Alacrity is part of it which horns definitely do but the corporeal power and body of the instruments to me is more important.

 

[Al M.]

Speaking only for myself, no. I prioritize the density and power of the note…not the sound staging. In fact, sound staging for me is probably one of the least important things and I rarely focus on it when auditioning. I focus on the equivalent of being able to walk next door and hear the music and think the power and depth of the notes feel like they had real instrument level power. Alacrity is part of it which horns definitely do but the corporeal power and body of the instruments to me is more important.

Same here. I care about physicality and corporeality of sound much more than about soundstaging. Audiophiles who visited to hear my system have often swooned over my soundstage and its depth, but while I find it a nice attribute and enjoy it, it doesn't mean as much to me. What does mean much to me is hearing the recorded concert hall ambience.

 

[tima]

Same here. I care about physicality and corporeality of sound much more than about soundstaging. Audiophiles who visited to hear my system have often swooned over my soundstage and its depth, but while I find it a nice attribute and enjoy it, it doesn't mean as much to me. What does mean much to me is hearing the recorded concert hall ambience.

Yes. I've written that what I want to hear psycho-acoustic-wise is the "sound of an orchestra in a hall" -- the energy projected out and upward in the venue context. That is more realistic to me than a soundstage which I think of as seeing the musicians laid out in my mind's eye.

 

[microstrip]

Yes. I've written that what I want to hear psycho-acoustic-wise is the "sound of an orchestra in a hall" -- the energy projected out and upward in the venue context. That is more realistic to me than a soundstage which I think of as seeing the musicians laid out in my mind's eye.

Three guys cheering up our local S.Silvestre race. I was watching someone going in the race and was waiting about 7 meters from them one hour ago . If someone pretends his high end system is able to convoy the energy we feel in such circumstances he has surely drank too much audiophile spirits ... At my place peaks were were around 90 dB but there was much more felt energy than systems playing at 110 dB.

Curious that proper sound stage surely needs energy and power. Some people seem to find that there is dichotomy between them. As I often said I need both - and appreciate a lot gear that is able to give both, such as the XLF ...

 

[Anton D]

Another great topic!

I thought this over.

Forced to chose, I go with dynamics and physicality over imaging.

When I go to a real music performance, I never think about where in the soundstage each voice in a chorus is, or does the drummer sound behind the vocalist - I'm there for a more "room energy" thing. Almost to the point where I find Hi Fi to sometimes takes me to "Uncanny Valley" and I get stuck placing each voice in space, thinking of smaller and smaller aspects of the performance, and hearing things very low in the mix so that perhaps I drift away from the importance of the actual music.

I like both, but live music brings the jump factor that I most prefer.

A picture of me pondering a similar question about foods...

 

[LL21]

Another great topic!

I thought this over.

Forced to chose, I go with dynamics and physicality over imaging.

When I go to a real music performance, I never think about where in the soundstage each voice in a chorus is, or does the drummer sound behind the vocalist - I'm there for a more "room energy" thing. Almost to the point where I find Hi Fi to sometimes takes me to "Uncanny Valley" and I get stuck placing each voice in space, thinking of smaller and smaller aspects of the performance, and hearing things very low in the mix that perhaps I drift away from the importance of the actual music.

I like both, but live music brings the jump factor that I most prefer.

Very interestingly said. My own take is similar:

- I think about the density/power of the note which includes dynamics and physical power
- I recognize that perhaps that may be why I stay with cones vs panels...though I recognize that alacrity and power do in fact create a very very physical sense of the music and cones often are just that slight milli-moment slow off the mark in comparison with the absolutely instantaneously powerful 'blat' of a note coming from a horn speaker

The ONE thing I will say that I enjoy about systems which can be tougher to hear in a live environment (unless you are very close to the artist) is the nuance of their performance, the saxist, flutist or even cellist up close is very different than in the mezz of the hall...whereas in many recordings you get that up close information due to the microphone positioning/mastering...and yet you dont always feel like you are front row because it has been mastered to give a different feel.

And that is where while I am not a detail freak, as time has gone on, and the system continued to evolve, I do enjoy hearing those elements now which perhaps 15 years ago I was only just beginning to really appreciate.

 

[Vinicius297]

By “Physicality” I mean the sense of the sound coming from a solid, physical body and this is not the same as “soundstage” or “weight”. As I said, a triangle has “physicality” without having “weight”. As long as the illusion that the sound is coming from something you could touch it’s “physical”. And this closely aligns with the demarcation between “live” and “reproduced”. We immediately know without analyzing it that something is live and vice versa. And it has very little to do with many of the traditional desiderata of “hi-fi”. In fact, the pursuit of some of these may even detract from our feeling of “that sounds live!”. Hi-fi, despite what many people say, is invariably a matter of trade-offs.

 

[LL21]

By “Physicality” I mean the sense of the sound coming from a solid, physical body and this is not the same as “soundstage” or “weight”. As I said, a triangle has “physicality” without having “weight”. As long as the illusion that the sound is coming from something you could touch it’s “physical”. And this closely aligns with the demarcation between “live” and “reproduced”. We immediately know without analyzing it that something is live and vice versa. And it has very little to do with many of the traditional desiderata of “hi-fi”. In fact, the pursuit of some of these may even detract from our feeling of “that sounds live!”. Hi-fi, despite what many people say, is invariably a matter of trade-offs.

Fair enough. For me, its the weight...do I feel like it sounds like an actual triangle when in the next room. That for me gives me great joy when in the room and listening. Each person has a difference sense of priorities for physicality...I respect yours.