Steve, I do NOT think that it is so much a question of imaging as the ability to portray the two extremes ( intimacy and detail vs. Slam and dynamics ). On the one hand, we have the ability to reproduce the BIG swings of the band....for instance the PUNCH and SLAM of a kettle drum along with the massive dynamics that instrument imbues. No way a small speaker in a small space can hope to reproduce that...Or probably MOST large speakers.( With the possible exception of your X-2's and a few others, although IF put in the same space as the Kettle drum, and AB'ed with it, I'm not sure how even these would hold up) BUT when listening to the very intimate string pieces, I do feel that the small high quality monitor in a small room portrays the intimacy and detail with more aplomb. ( Perhaps this is a generalization, but it certainly has held up for me in my listening experience)
What speaker for what music?
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
I don't doubt that at all, Steve. Even sitting just a few feet from my speakers, the size of the image can change dramatically. When the speakers/room are working right, that size if a function of the recording. But I suspect you have a pretty well-treated room.
Tim
Some large speakers can do both by good design, I doubt a small speaker is capable of doing the same. I have always felt that multiple drivers are better than one large driver for producing detail and nuance. If you want to reproduce a full orchestra or a magnificent pipe organ I think you need a two tier system with main speakers and subs. If you want to reproduce a total wall of sound you need a 3 tier system and that 3rd tier handles the psychoacoustics side of the reproduction. The 3rd tier will also enhance a intimate vocal or small ensemble recording. I think your better off with a multiple speaker array and that way you get the best of both worlds. IMHO
No speaker reproduces detail and nuance like a pair of reference headphones. Look at small, accurate, high-powered monitors set up in the near field as a step between headphones and conventional speaker systems and the logic in what Davey is saying becomes clear. That doesn't mean there are no exceptions, but what he's saying not only makes sense, I hear it.
Tim
That's like bringing a knife to a gun fight.....there are two extremes in audio, headphones and Mark Basspig Weiss.
I gave up on recreating a Symphony in the home, just not practical. When the need for a fix arises, I just go to the local Symphony. Auditorium/Hall acoustics are quite good and the playing/musicianship is way better than I expected. Damned shame I ignored them for so long. Best decision I ever made a number of years ago from an audio/music perspective. All IMHO, of course.
That's like bringing a knife to a gun fight.....there are two extremes in audio, headphones and Mark Basspig Weiss.
Fair enough, but that particular round of the match was framed in nuance and detail, with a follow-through about multiple drivers. Plug a pair of high-end Sennheisers or AKGs into a decent headphone amp, and what you have is single drivers, no crossovers, no driver coherence issues, no room problems, and gobs of clean headroom resulting in incredible detail resolution. Set up a pair of small, high-powered active two-way monitors in a near field configuration, in a reasonably quiet room, and you have two drivers with an extremely steep crossovers before amplification, close enough to make first reflections and the resulting comb filtering a pretty moot point, ie: minimized cross over, coherence and room issues and gobs of clean headroom.
It is, without question, the closest you can get to the detail resolution of headphones outside of the head. Now, of course if you try to get the deepest bass and add a sub, you'll have those room issues to deal with, but they're no more difficult than they are in big rooms. Easier in most cases. If your listening is not a group experience, it can be a very effective (and extremely efficient) way to go. Compromises? Sure. Always. But I've said all this before, and YMMV. But that's my experience.
Tim
The detail and nuance can be enhanced with a seperate pair of speakers and the crossover is done passively. There are a few of us that have our systems setup this way and it is not expensive to do this. I agree headphones are champs at ambient nuance presentation,but there are ways to bring forth that quality to a full room environment. Most use subs to enhance low frequency,few think about it to enhance the upper mid and high frequencies.
Do you think that the creators of the recording (the sometimes called "artist" and the sound engineers ) were anticipating that listeners would listen this way?
BTW, when you refer to near field configuration what are exactly the distances from the speakers to listener you are addressing ? Some people consider it 1m , others around 1.5 and some even 2m.
No. But I think the artists and the engineers themselves were listening this way.
I don't think there's much difference in a good room, but most near field studio set-ups are a meter, meter and a half. That's where mine is, about 1.5. And don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying it is the only legitimate way to listen, or even the best way to listen. It is just the best way I've found to listen for what I enjoy most about reproduction, other than the music itself.
Tim
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 ...
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.
It was bound to happen someday. Even a broken clock is right twice a day
Mostly for convenience during the recording sessions, not for quality. I am not an expert in recording, but from what I have read proper listening during mastering should be carried in the far field.
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
Not if you maintain the same triangulation and distance of the loudspeaker to the front wall
I guess that's my point.Every speaker design has a sweet zone dictated by it's polar pattern and relative distances between each loudspeaker to the listener and from loudspeaker to loudspeaker. Not to mention the LF contouring designed into the loudspeaker that takes into account what the loudspeaker manufacturer would anticipate in terms of what likely boundary reinforcement will be present in customer's homes/listening spaces as noted above.
How's about we break down what contributes to precise imaging? In a nutshell it is precise symmetry in signal and propagation. The most solid center image is the result of getting as exact a signal to our ears from the left and right channels. The farther we go from the sound sources, the more important the symmetry of the room itself becomes. How about detail? Details get buried in the noise floors of the systems themselves as well as the room's. Provide a quiet room and a system that can output 6dB more for every doubling of distance without strain and we won't be missing details. Line sources do even better hence my deep hankering for a pair someday.
Where I think things become Apples and Grapefruits is scale. Oh boy, here I go again. Think of a stereo system as a TV screen. A desktop system is like a 24" monitor. Sit close to it and it fills up your field of view. An X-2 is like a 115" screen. You can be positioned to have the same exact field of view (relative scale) BUT the relative difference in scale between the two is very different in that the specific image sizes might go from a few inches tall to a few feet tall (absolute scale). Needless to say, an Ewok has less of a chance of breaking your ribs than a Wookie. There's a direct relationship between size and force (dynamics)
In any case, the recording's own image sizes fit into whatever screen you are playing it on and within it the sizes may grow or shrink in the all too familiar way we have come to associate mic'ing distance with image size. So you might get Harry Belafonte taking up 5% of the carnegie hall stage but he'll be standing 10" tall on your desktop or 6" tall in your listening room and anywhere in between.Going back to the OP's choice of speaker for the music, some genres do like scale. Big Band, Classical, the kind of Rock that's enjoyed best in stadiums, Dance Music like House and Trance. I avoid these in my bedroom system which has two way monitors. The system can play it but the main system plays 'em better. Both systems play small scale music very well.
I guess if a big rig can't do small scale music as well as a pair of monitors all it means is that either there are shortcomings to the designs themselves or there's just a bit more work to be done on the part of the owner.
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?
I have always thought this logic was seriously flawed. Here is what I believe: small speakers can’t sound big, but big speakers can sound “small” if small is what is encoded in the tape, the grooves, or the master digital file.
In that same vein, I have never believed in one type of speaker for rock, another type for jazz, and yet another for classical. If a speaker is accurate, can handle large amounts of power without distorting and compressing the signal, it should be able to play any and all types of music equally well. If it can’t, something is wrong with the speaker.
Most certainly for quality. Mastering is the final phase of the process, in which the stereo mix is tweaked for mass production. It is done on all kinds of studio and domestic equipment, depending on the studio. Some studios master on high-end domestic playback equipment, some on mid field pro monitor systems, some on the same near fields the recording and mixing is done. It is important. It is certainly a step at which the recording can be made better or worse. But let's not give it more importance than it deserves. The overwhelming majority of the work that the artists and engineers do to make music on record is done in the studio control room, not the mastering suite, and it is not for convenience it is for quality, the quality required to reveal fine detail. With all of that said, some people don't like playback to be that revealing; it's not for everyone. For this old musician who spent many years listening almost exclusively to headphone systems, active near field monitors are the perfect speaker set up. They take that headphone precision and intimacy and float it out in front of me instead of placing it inside of my head. Perfect. YMMV.
Tim
If you want to hear that in a large scale, you're welcome to fly over Tim
Reno's a lot closer
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |