So, simply you have not listened to Momentum's on Wilson. Nothing to add.
I doubt I will prefer it to darTZeel or Gryphon.
Last edited:
So, simply you have not listened to Momentum's on Wilson. Nothing to add.
IMHO the air and realism of live music is lost by recording and mastering process. When a cd (or any other source) is played during the brake of the band in a jazz club it becomes more obvious. All the realism, impact, liveliness, dynamics and effortlessness vanish, you left with dry and uninvolved sound of recorded music. It’s the same amps and speakers but totally different sound. It’s almost always the same difference even if all the instruments are not heard directly but through mikes, amps and speakers.
IMHO the main struggle of home audio is fighting against degradation of lifelike nature by recording and production process of music.
True stereo recordings like Ken Christianson does with a pair of AKG microphones (ORTF) and a Nagra IVS or Decca three or RCA all sound great to my ears. Most multi miked recordings also sound great even though they're not stereo but two channel mono. After all they're just recordings. I'm not arguing which technique sounds best I'm just saying any process such as recording, mixing, mastering, pressing etc washes away realism. More process means farther away from reality.Are you suggesting that a stereo microphone feed keeps the air and realism? Or simply that the stereo process, reducing a sound field to tow channels kills them?
Although I prefer listening to it in top stereo, IMHO in classical music multichannel has more air and realism than stereo.
Please give specific room examples and maybe post some videos. This is a video thread after all.As I was editing the video clips on my iMac last night of the videos I recorded at AXPONA 2023, listening to many of the video recordings of show audio system playbacks over and over, I was struck by how misleading was the sound of some (but by no means all) of the video clips versus the sound I heard in person, in real life, just hours earlier.
One system which garnered rave reviews in person sounded weirdly boomy on the videos in each of five different recordings with five different tracks. Conversely, a large and elaborate and expensive system which most people I discussed it with reported that it sounded inexplicably underwhelming in person actually sounded quite good on the videos.
For me, personally, this is more evidence of the folly of believing that you can understand from a video recording of the audio playback of a system you have never heard in person in an unfamiliar room and especially with an unfamiliar recording the sound of that system.
Very few recordings capture the air in the recording venue and not many systems are good enough to reproduce that air. When demoing speakers/systems, 'air' is the first thing I look out for.IMHO the air and realism of live music is lost by recording and mastering process. When a cd (or any other source) is played during the brake of the band in a jazz club it becomes more obvious. All the realism, impact, liveliness, dynamics and effortlessness vanish, you left with dry and uninvolved sound of recorded music. It’s the same amps and speakers but totally different sound. It’s almost always the same difference even if all the instruments are not heard directly but through mikes, amps and speakers.
IMHO the main struggle of home audio is fighting against degradation of lifelike nature by recording and production process of music.
I agree with your comment on Jay's videos, all that zing and sizzle to give the impression of detailed sound.Very good. My Supravox fieldcoil full range drivers have a similar response curve but do not sound as extended.
You are focusing in my comments to much a full-range drivers. My comments here and on Peter’s thread were general comments.
If you want to hear an example of ear-piercing high-frequencies reproduction that is passed off as HIgh-End Audio today please visit Jay’s Audio Lab and you will hear what I mean instantly.
Indeed, as in:I agree with your comment on Jay's videos, all that zing and sizzle to give the impression of detailed sound.
Mind you i thought his video of the Tannoy's sounded decent. (though i am biased)
Indeed, as in:
As I was editing the video clips on my iMac last night of the videos I recorded at AXPONA 2023, listening to many of the video recordings of show audio system playbacks over and over, I was struck by how misleading was the sound of some (but by no means all) of the video clips versus the sound I heard in person, in real life, just hours earlier.
The real music may sound close or far, airy or dry and the recording should reflect that same image. I don't mean more impact, air, presence by using the word "lifelike". If it's soft the recording should sound soft. But when you compare mike feed of a real instrument to a line output of cd player (or any other source) feeding same equipment it fells like you're trying to eat plastic fruit made for display. That's how I feel about direct comparison of live and recorded. I tried to explain it in my prior post by referring to jazz club experience. Even when the only difference is the source (mike feed of a real instrument or a pre recorded release) same amp and speakers sound totally different. Of course when an instrument plays in front of you without a mike, amp and speakers it sounds best.
"Air" is an interesting sonic concept and please let me reserve the right to think more fully in the future on a proposed definition than I have time for right now. There is not going to be a satisfying one to one identity between a sense of "air" I hear from stereo systems versus the sense of openness and wideband audio frequency transmission capability I here at Walt Disney Concert Hall.
At Walt Disney Concert Hall, I don't hear "air" per se, but I hear a wide and broad conduit, a sonic gateway, through which any frequency may be transmitted and received (heard by listeners in the hall). If there is a high frequency sound, or an overtone of a high frequency sound, or a high frequency harmonic of a lower frequency sound, generated by an instrument the hall allows the listener to hear it.
In stereo systems I perceive a sense of "air" to be kind of a proxy for this sense of wideband sonic conduit or gateway I hear live. In stereo systems the "air" manifests as a sense of openness and unrestricted treble frequency reproduction capability.
(Is it possible this sense of "air" concept is more related to phase information than to audio frequency information? I think Flemming thought so, because he added to the Pendragons four AMTs per side that start at 18kHz!)
I think David's Bionors are missing some of this sense of higher frequency "air" and openness.
Whatever is this sonic concept of "air" I am discussing here, I believe it is why some people add supertweeters to their loudspeaker systems. As usual in this hobby, totally subjective preference.
I think the Pendragons are in the contemporary sound/extended frequency response category, and the sonic center of gravity is higher, presently, than I would like it to be. In my system I hear the "air" I am talking about (despite the measured, objective frequency response rolling off significantly at around 8kHz (very puzzling!)).
As I mentioned in my system thread I am trying to nudge downward the sonic center of gravity of my system. I would like to rein in some of the upper midrange and treble range energy, without losing the sense of "air" and "openness."
are you simply substituting Karen's notion of where a system's sound should be musically dense with your goal of a lower "sonic center of gravity" and noting that it is lower on the chart than your perception of your system's frequency balance would indicate? Is the red line on the chart your "center of gravity" frequency goal for your system?
I have no clue about what is meant by "sonic center of gravity"
I understand natural sound as balanced sound.
Feel free not to adopt my terminology. To each his own on the terminology.
I don't use your term "balanced" because it makes no sense to me. "Balanced" suggests a pivot point in the middle. Between 20Hz and 8kHz the balance point would be about 4kHz.
You and Peter seem to prefer a sound that emphasizes the upper bass/lower midrange (I appreciate that you may not agree with this characterization). But there is nothing "balanced" about that sound in the sense that it represents the middle of the relevant audio frequency spectrum. If you don't mean the middle, then I think "balanced" is the wrong word
Peter's definition of "balanced" includes the requirement that no part of the frequency range sticks out or makes itself noticed or draws attention to itself. I agree with this objective (what audiophile wants a part of the frequency range to draw attention to itself and break his/her concentration from enjoying the music?). It is something I agree with, but I do not think this concept is properly described as "balanced."
When I think of "balanced" I think of a see-saw. A see-saw is balanced only when the pivot point is in the middle of an equally-bisected, equally-weighted board. If the board balances outside of the middle then each end is of a different weight. If you want to balance a sonic see-saw in the upper bass/lower midrange then that means the lower frequencies are much more pronounced (heavier) than are the higher (lighter) frequencies.
If you don't like the see-saw analogy, I understand that -- ignore it. Then I will retrench to the suggestion that strong and heavy in the lower frequencies and light and weak in the higher frequencies is not properly thought of as "balanced." I just wouldn't use the word "balanced" to describe the sonic attributes you and Peter are talking about.
Again, to each his own on the terminology.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |