Your "World's Best Audio System" . . . 2012 Edition

[fas42]

That doesn't mean, of course, that I didn't combine it with one of your fantasies and lampoon you imagining hearing perfect imaging from down the hall and around the corner whilst sitting on the commode.

But that does bring up an interesting point. On at the moment is Christopher Franke, "The London Concert", 100% synthesiser soundscape, with a gargantuan soundstage. That immensity of the soundstage is very obvious from everywhere in the house, including inside the smallest room, because enough spatial signals get bounced around passageways, under doors and pass through walls to get the message through. Our biological inheritance has made us capable of decoding the most subtle of auditory clues, and providing they are not too badly mucked up they do register at a distance to tell us correctly what's going on.

Frank

 

[Roysen]

You have to consider it in dual slave-mono and not just the single Devialet as I mentioned, in theory there are great benefits in taking this architecture and making the stereo amp mono due to the "current dumping" type architecture.
Just in case I am jumping the gun, were you thinking of what you heard with it as a single stereo unit or actually two units in mono using 5.3 software?
Single unit is indeed great value, but for best performance one would not necessarily say paying 23k Euros for mostly a redundant DAC on the 2nd unit is (although the DAC is integral to the output so not sure if they will ever make cheaper mono units but hope they can in future).
Cheers
Orb

I have heard them both in stereo and mono configuration. They are not TWBAS material.

Cheers,
Roysen

 

[microstrip]

Linkwitz Orions and Linkwitz Thor subwoofers.

Tim

Tim,

I have followed Siegfried Linkwitz activities since the end of the 70's, when he published some active designs using KEF loudspeakers in Wireless World - a magazine that was subscribed by our university library and I was always attentive to get my hands on as son as it a new issue arrived. He is surely a talented designer of great value, with an outstanding knowledge of mathematics, physics and engineering, that I admire. Unhappily I never have listened to any of his products, as they are not available in my country, but I have read many of his papers and his website is one of the best about loudspeaker design. I must say his arguments about dipoles had some influence in my way of listening.

But I must say I am a little and happily astonished with your choice of preferred speakers for TWBAS - Linkwitz designs seem to pursue and privilege the audiophile "foolish" dream - the perceptual recreation of the real event as perceived during a live event and its emotional perception - the "being there".

Can I ask you why you have chosen this speaker setup for this thread?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Can I ask you why you have chosen this speaker setup for this thread?

Because in the right room -- and they really need a big room where you can pull the speakers well out away from the walls -- they sound amazing. I listen to headphones and active monitors in a near field set up, in a very small room. These systems have their advantages -- isolation, intimacy, detail retrieval (or rather, the ability to hear the details that are being retrieved). Probably their greatest attribute is pinpoint imaging. Unrealistic in headphones and hyper-realistic in near field monitors, it is not an attempt to re-create a natural listening space, it is, in fact, unnatural, but fun. My near field system is not perfect, but really, it's not going to get much better. It only needs the right sub, and in this room one will do.

So if I had a big, dedicated listening room in which to build a dream system, what would I dream of? The opposite extreme. Creating a huge ambient space filled with music! Would I lose some imaging? Of course. Would I gain a wonderful new listening experience? Yes! And when I think of creating that big roomful of sound I think back on the big, room-filling systems I've heard. Some were incredibly expensive, with speakers the size of major appliances and massive power amplifiers and subwoofers all over the room. But none of them created the sense of space or approached the consistency of FR in positions all over the room that comes from the Orions.

And I haven't even heard the Thors. Actually, I probably wouldn't need them. Their FR is identical to the bass units in the Orions, and Dr. Linkwitz thinks their necessity is contingent on room size. So if I were building the room, I could just size it, and treat it, for the Orions alone.

This would make the system, by WBAS standards, an incredible bargain. The upper end of midfi, putting most systems, at any price, on the bench, IMO.

Yes, and I know Dr. Linkwitz talks of creating a "natural" space. There is a huge difference, I think, between endeavoring to create a natural-sounding and feeling audio space in a room, and believing that your system is re-creating an original event that was not captured on the recording in the first place. The first is making the most of omni-directional speaker designs and natural room acoustics. The latter is fooling yourself.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Yes, and I know Dr. Linkwitz talks of creating a "natural" space. There is a huge difference, I think, between endeavoring to create a natural-sounding and feeling audio space in a room, and believing that your system is re-creating an original event that was not captured on the recording in the first place. The first is making the most of omni-directional speaker designs and natural room acoustics. The latter is fooling yourself.

Tim

This is all quite revelatory, Tim, you DO believe in Santa Claus. You've been quite sly, seemingly claiming that the sort of audio experiences I've been referring to are not possible, yet here you are cheerfully acknowledging that it is in fact quite reasonable to be able to conjure up such soundscapes ...

Question: you have your fabulous ideal listening environment and equipment, but some annoying individual chucked the Orions and associated driving amplifiers out the window, and substituted your current active speakers in their place, same postioning. So would the sound go all pear shaped, or not, and why, and in what way?

Frank

 

[Peter Breuninger]

Because in the right room -- and they really need a big room where you can pull the speakers well out away from the walls -- they sound amazing. I listen to headphones and active monitors in a near field set up, in a very small room. These systems have their advantages -- isolation, intimacy, detail retrieval (or rather, the ability to hear the details that are being retrieved). Probably their greatest attribute is pinpoint imaging. Unrealistic in headphones and hyper-realistic in near field monitors, it is not an attempt to re-create a natural listening space, it is, in fact, unnatural, but fun. My near field system is not perfect, but really, it's not going to get much better. It only needs the right sub, and in this room one will do... But none of them created the sense of space or approached the consistency of FR in positions all over the room that comes from the Orions.

This would make the system, by WBAS standards, an incredible bargain. The upper end of midfi, putting most systems, at any price, on the bench, IMO.

Yes, and I know Dr. Linkwitz talks of creating a "natural" space...

Tim

I have an excellent clip with Dr. Linkwitz and his partner from the Axpona NY show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXa08hUVXKQ

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This is all quite revelatory, Tim, you DO believe in Santa Claus. You've been quite sly, seemingly claiming that the sort of audio experiences I've been referring to are not possible, yet here you are cheerfully acknowledging that it is in fact quite reasonable to be able to conjure up such soundscapes ...

Nonsense. I believe in the ability to create a bigger sound field in a bigger physical space, and the cleanest, most efficient and most effective execution of that I've experienced is with active amplification/crossovers, open baffle bipole speaker designs, and proper speaker placement, not with box speakers the size of freezers, amplifiers the size of generators and subwoofers everywhere you turn. Which is where I part from normal audiophiles. Where I part from you, Frank is in my inability to accept that you can turn a 75-year-old recording into an utterly natural listening experience with a soldering iron, and with your claim that you can get perfect stereo imaging from system with your ear an inch from one of your tweeters.

We are not on the same page because I believe there is more than one valid listening experience.

Question: you have your fabulous ideal listening environment and equipment, but some annoying individual chucked the Orions and associated driving amplifiers out the window, and substituted your current active speakers in their place, same postioning. So would the sound go all pear shaped, or not, and why, and in what way?

Pear shaped? No. A cardioid-pattern box speaker is not that limited in dispersion, and small stand-mounted monitor type speakers will disperse better than most, but they will not disperse like open-baffle, bipole designs. How could they? Give me a sub or two, however, and a smaller space, and I could get pretty close.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Yes, and I know Dr. Linkwitz talks of creating a "natural" space. There is a huge difference, I think, between endeavoring to create a natural-sounding and feeling audio space in a room, and believing that your system is re-creating an original event that was not captured on the recording in the first place. The first is making the most of omni-directional speaker designs and natural room acoustics. The latter is fooling yourself.
Tim

Tim,
IMHO Siegfried Linkwitz speakers aim about creating the illusion of the real performance - his definition of "natural" space is much similar to the "audiophile definition". I quote from his site:

"The best one can hope for with 2-channel sound reproduction is the illusion of listening into the recording venue. Physics does not allow the accurate reproduction of the original sound field with only two speakers."

"It is possible to reproduce a stereo recording in an ordinary living room such that listeners have the illusion that the two loudspeakers have disappeared. When they close their eyes, they can easily imagine to be present at the recording space, as they listen to the phantom audio scene in front of them.

It has been a fascinating journey for me to come to this understanding. Early on, electrostatic panel loudspeakers had intrigued me, because they seemed to do something fundamentally right when properly set up, and this despite their obvious limitations. I can see in hindsight that a few loudspeaker designers had pointed to the benefits of omni-directional loudspeakers. The ORION+ has demonstrated to me what more is possible in 2-channel sound reproduction, provided that the recording contains natural spatial cues and is not merely an artificial sound mix."

"A properly set up and functioning stereo system allows a listener to make judgments about the plausibility and artificiality of the evoked auditory scene. In addition to timbre and loudness accuracy it is the spatial distribution of virtual sources that becomes apparent. Are they spread between the loudspeakers like laundry on a clothes line? Are instruments stacked up on top of the center vocalist? Are different instruments contained in their own acoustic sub-space forming together an auditory collage? Are they part of a common acoustic space evoking the auditory image of a jazz club or concert hall? Is the soloist sliding to the center or does he stand out unnaturally when it is his turn? Is it a multi-miked studio recording lacking natural space? Is it a live recording as one might have heard it from the audience perspective?
I must assume that many recording engineers use monitor systems that do not tell them the overall spatial effect of their microphone selection, placement and mixing decisions. This is unfortunate, because stereo is capable of higher realism than what is typically accepted, both for recording and playback purposes."

"With the listener in the "sweet spot" a virtual sound scene should open up in front of him. The minimum perceived distance to this scene is the distance D to the loudspeakers. Well recorded program material will evoke a realistic auditory scene, like a picture, in the listener's brain. "

 

[MylesBAstor]

While I acknowledge Siegfried's contributions, his Audio Artistry speakers were always disappointing sounding to me and never lived up to some of the raves they received in some magazines.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,
IMHO Siegfried Linkwitz speakers aim about creating the illusion of the real performance - his definition of "natural" space is much similar to the "audiophile definition".

You might be right, micro, but if you are, I've misunderstood many audiophiles, even some here in this oasis of reason, when they've spoken about recreating the "original event." They seemed to be talking about transforming recordings into something like a live performance, even when there was no "live" performance recorded.

That's not what I hear Dr. Linkwitz saying here:

"The best one can hope for with 2-channel sound reproduction is the illusion of listening into the recording venue."

Or here...

"It is possible to reproduce a stereo recording in an ordinary living room such that listeners have the illusion that the two loudspeakers have disappeared. When they close their eyes, they can easily imagine to be present at the recording space, as they listen to the phantom audio scene in front of them."

Or particularly here...

A properly set up and functioning stereo system allows a listener to make judgments about the plausibility and artificiality of the evoked auditory scene. In addition to timbre and loudness accuracy it is the spatial distribution of virtual sources that becomes apparent. Are they spread between the loudspeakers like laundry on a clothes line? Are instruments stacked up on top of the center vocalist? Are different instruments contained in their own acoustic sub-space forming together an auditory collage? Are they part of a common acoustic space evoking the auditory image of a jazz club or concert hall? Is the soloist sliding to the center or does he stand out unnaturally when it is his turn? Is it a multi-miked studio recording lacking natural space? Is it a live recording as one might have heard it from the audience perspective?

I must assume that many recording engineers use monitor systems that do not tell them the overall spatial effect of their microphone selection, placement and mixing decisions. This is unfortunate, because stereo is capable of higher realism than what is typically accepted, both for recording and playback purposes.

Or even here...

"With the listener in the "sweet spot" a virtual sound scene should open up in front of him. The minimum perceived distance to this scene is the distance D to the loudspeakers. Well recorded program material will evoke a realistic auditory scene, like a picture, in the listener's brain.

What Dr. Linkwitz is talking about is reproducing the recording, and all of its nuance, right up to and including the sense of space created (or not) by microphone placement, and the space around those microphones (or not, depending on if that the placement allows the recording of that space).

He could also include any processing done to electronically enhance the sense of space that is captured. I enthusiastically agree with everything Dr. Linkwitz said above, which is very different from a playback system magically creating something closer to a live performance event that was not captured on the recording in the first place. That's what I've heard some audiophiles describe. That's what I do not believe in.

If I've misunderstood, audiophiles everywhere have my apologies.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

While I acknowledge Siegfried's contributions, his Audio Artistry speakers were always disappointing sounding to me and never lived up to some of the raves they received in some magazines.

Having never heard his Audo Artistry speakers, I can't comment on them, but I can say that I have found many audiophile products disappointing relative to the raves they received in some magazines.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

A true system would pass what's on the record through the system. The fact that I expect a recreation of the live event does not mean I expect the system to color it so.

 

[microstrip]

(...) He could also include any processing done to electronically enhance the sense of space that is captured. I enthusiastically agree with everything Dr. Linkwitz said above, which is very different from a playback system magically creating something closer to a live performance event that was not captured on the recording in the first place. That's what I've heard some audiophiles describe. That's what I do not believe in.

I have tried to address this point several times - the "natural" or "reality" clues are part of the recording. Sometimes they are added during mastering to "fool you in the illusion" or to create special effects that are part of the engineer or artist intentions.

One of the key points is that some systems are not capable of showing these clues and because of it people consider that they are non existent. Another is that some systems add distortions that systematically seem to enhance some features that can under a quick listen suggest more real and in the longer term show tiresome and disturbing for some of us, and will obscure the feeling of the true real space or artist intentions.

BTW, there are plenty of other excellent dipoles built with conventional speakers - just thinking of the big old Infinity's, Genesis or Nola.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I have tried to address this point several times - the "natural" or "reality" clues are part of the recording. Sometimes they are added during mastering to "fool you in the illusion" or to create special effects that are part of the engineer or artist intentions.

It's a good point. Ambience, sound stage, imaging...it's all in the recording. How your speakers reproduce it in your space is another step in the process, but it's in the recording or it won't show up in your room, regardless of the quality of your system.

One of the key points is that some systems are not capable of showing these clues and because of it people consider that they are non existent.

I suppose that's true, but they're pretty lousy systems. Even headphones, plugged into a small amp are capable of reproducing the cues that indicate the placement of mics and the ambient space around them. They present it very differently than near field monitors which present it very differently than conventional speakers which present it differently than open baffle bi-poles like the Orions. But the cues are all there and the difference between close mic'd in an isolation booth and a mic three or four feet away from the singer, in a relatively lively space, is obvious. The listener may or may not know what he's hearing but the difference will be much more dramatic than differences we fuss about daily in the audiophile world. With that said, the ability of a speaker system to present these cues and disappear at the same time, leaving only the space, without the point source, is much more difficult, and the territory of pretty darned good speakers.

Another is that some systems add distortions that systematically seem to enhance some features that can under a quick listen suggest more real and in the longer term show tiresome and disturbing for some of us, and will obscure the feeling of the true real space or artist intentions.

We agree again. There are deviations from accuracy that create an illusion of space that some people seem to love. I'm glad they're enjoying their systems.

BTW, there are plenty of other excellent dipoles built with conventional speakers - just thinking of the big old Infinity's, Genesis or Nola.

We're on a roll of agreement, micro.

Tim

 

[fas42]

We're on a roll of agreement, micro.

Tim

I agree: an excellent conversation in progress, and perhaps indicating that people are really closer to a common understanding of the elements of high performance sound reproduction than they realise or perceive ...

Even headphones, plugged into a small amp are capable of reproducing the cues that indicate the placement of mics and the ambient space around them. They present it very differently than near field monitors which present it very differently than conventional speakers which present it differently than open baffle bi-poles like the Orions.

Disagree. When the system driving conventional speakers is functioning correctly these differences disappear, because these cues are reproduced faithfully. As mentioned in a previous thread some time ago I in fact tried this experiment with audiophile headphones: headphones on, then speaker sound, back to headphones. I'm afraid the speakers won, the soundscape was the same, but the speakers weren't claustophobic, and the texture of the speaker space was enriched and more involving, probably by the extra reflections formed by the listening area.

With that said, the ability of a speaker system to present these cues and disappear at the same time, leaving only the space, without the point source, is much more difficult, and the territory of pretty darned good speakers

This is where I'm in severe disagreement with most: I have heard "superb" speakers and they fail miserably in this job. Why? Because the disturbing distortion being generated by the system as a totality is overwhelming, and completely disrupts the chance of a convincing illusion being formed, especially when closer to a particular speaker assembly.

Frank

 

[fas42]

Nonsense. I believe in the ability to create a bigger sound field in a bigger physical space, and the cleanest, most efficient and most effective execution of that I've experienced is with active amplification/crossovers, open baffle bipole speaker designs, and proper speaker placement, not with box speakers the size of freezers, amplifiers the size of generators and subwoofers everywhere you turn

A bigger sound field is possible in a very small space but the electronics have to be working at their best to make this possible. The small space emphasises, highlights every little, particularly averse "defect" in the sound structure, and the mind rejects the result as not "correct". A big space, that a lot of audiophiles use, helps to soak up those irritating artifacts and if that doesn't work then you add room treatment to get rid of the rest of them

Where I part from you, Frank is in my inability to accept that you can turn a 75-year-old recording into an utterly natural listening experience with a soldering iron, and with your claim that you can get perfect stereo imaging from system with your ear an inch from one of your tweeters.

My claim is that tweaking if sufficiently done and precisely focused in the right areas allows the ear/brain to do what it naturally wants to do: properly integrate what it hears to make sense of a musical message by rejecting that which is not part of that message. If you go to the lengths necessary you will achieve that goal, it does become a natural listening experience and the corollary is that the speakers disappear, to the point of your ears being able to be that close to the drivers. I've had my ears a couple of feet from Wilson and similar speaker drivers, and the sense of raw muscle power steaming with sweat hanging on with an iron grip to the voice coil I have to say was not conducive to musical niceties ...

We are not on the same page because I believe there is more than one valid listening experience

Fair enough.

Pear shaped? No. A cardioid-pattern box speaker is not that limited in dispersion, and small stand-mounted monitor type speakers will disperse better than most, but they will not disperse like open-baffle, bipole designs.

Disperse? What exactly is the benefit of that? To get lots of early reflections, or soak up some of the ugly sounds?

Frank

 

[Steve Williams]

Can we keep this thread on topic at least to discuss what Jeff had asked of everyone

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

We can try Steve, but every time anyone posts a view of the "best" system that is unconventional, you'll get this kind of diversion.

Tim

 

[fas42]

Sorry, too, about contributing to thread drift ...

Frank

 

[Orb]

Jeff,
will you be considering the subjective sound quality not just using traditional CD 16bit/44.1khz, but also hi res 24bit/88.2khz and above?

Not sure if this should necessarily affect the decision of TWBAS, but it may be interesting to note when looking into this whether one system is truly more advance/better with these higher recordings.
This would have value as there may be a chance hi-res recordings go more mainstream in the future (Apple an example of potentially pushing this in some way).
So you may end up with two systems where the differentiation is cd quality and hi-rez, or maybe one system that is the best for both.
As I mentioned though, this could be more of a small investigation and just sidenote in the overall project and articles.

Thanks
Orb