What speaker for what music?

[Phelonious Ponk]

But, independently of the opinion of the "thousands of audio engineers", I could see that F. Toole presents technical data on why the front end has not stabilized.

And I agree with that. By the "front end" I'm assuming you mean the image. It has not stabilized. that's why the position of your head, when listening in the near field, is so critical. To put it another way, the sweet spot is extremely small. What I and the many, many engineers who do the majority of the mixing done in this world on near field monitors would disagree with is that it is not a good format for critical listening.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

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.

Mep,

Although I generally agree with your points, there is an exception for every rule. And these exceptions can be the challenging points of debates. I have heard small speakers sounding "big" (not like big, but creating the illusion of the type of sound we associate with big speakers) when used in a proper system. Three examples : the Maggico M2 driven by the Audio Research REF610T , an impressive demo of a pair of B&W Silver Signature driven by Mark Levinson and the Sonus Faber Extrema with your Krell KSA250. Surely when playing adequate recordings that encoded this information of sounding big.

Your second comment forgets that every speaker is an engineering product, and as such subject to compromises that interact between them. Depending on the compromises that were made the speaker can be more adequate for classical than for rock. As they say - good engineers do not design and build perfect products, they should deliver the best they can for a certain target.

 

[microstrip]

And I agree with that. By the "front end" I'm assuming you mean the image. It has not stabilized. that's why the position of your head, when listening in the near field, is so critical. To put it another way, the sweet spot is extremely small. What I and the many, many engineers who do the majority of the mixing done in this world on near field monitors would disagree with is that it is not a good format for critical listening.

Tim

Thanks for pointing my mistake in my answer - you should read frontwave in the text, as originally used by Toole . My fingers typed faster than my mind. The frontwave is related to every property of sound - timbre, image and so on.

BTW, Toole refers that many engineers listen this way - and regrets it. As he writes, but I have not quoted as I found it was not relevant, " but as they say, perhaps it is “good enough for rock-and-roll.”


Just corrected the post.

 

[DaveyF]

DaveyF - I am lost with this thread , the topic is really of my interest and since I reached to a conclusion based on my personal experience some time ago, I was looking for some additional information once this thread started (thanks ), but now I see valid but many "shoots to the air". Since you started it, I was wondering if you have arrived to some conclusions or just declare it is again "a matter of tastes"

Not really any concrete conclusions, Fernando. The point I am trying to make in this thread, is that when one listens to a 'live' band or orchestra, in a medium to large hall; the sound that one hears is in no way 'constricted' or without seemingly endless 'expansion'. In our homes, I have never heard a speaker...large or small, that can portray both of these aspects of the 'live' experience. I know there are people here and elsewhere, who believe that this is NOT the case and that we can reproduce exactly both of these aspects in our room...however, all I can say to these same people is PLEASE go and listen to the 'live' event and PLEASE listen hard enough to contemplate what I am saying.

I do hold to the belief that all speakers that I have heard, are shall we say- 'voiced' to a particular genre.
IMHO, my 'live' experience has nothing to do with the ability of a large speaker vs. a small speaker and whether it is easier to construct a better performing large speaker than a small speaker.

My experience is that in a small room, the small speaker can portray more intimacy or "exacting" detail due to the 'near field' listening experience ( Not usual for a large speaker in the same size room, although I suppose it may be possible)....I have NOT had this same experience in a large room, regardless of the size of speaker.
Not that there is anything wrong with a large room, as that enables the speaker ( usually a large speaker) to portray the width of the stage and the bottom octave or so more realistically. Like I said, you take your pick and choose your compromise.

 

[RogerD]

I would like to hear a small speaker have the "gestalt" of a large speaker. The larger speaker is capable of producing the power and majesty of a pipe organ,the scale is smaller but you can feel and sense the energy in the recording. Many times I have raised my clenched fists in approval as I am showered with energy of the final crescendo. Exhilarating!

 

[puroagave]

Not really any concrete conclusions, Fernando. The point I am trying to make in this thread, is that when one listens to a 'live' band or orchestra, in a medium to large hall; the sound that one hears is in no way 'constricted' or without seemingly endless 'expansion'. In our homes, I have never heard a speaker...large or small, that can portray both of these aspects of the 'live' experience. I know there are people here and elsewhere, who believe that this is NOT the case and that we can reproduce exactly both of these aspects in our room...however, all I can say to these same people is PLEASE go and listen to the 'live' event and PLEASE listen hard enough to contemplate what I am saying.

I do hold to the belief that all speakers that I have heard, are shall we say- 'voiced' to a particular genre.
IMHO, my 'live' experience has nothing to do with the ability of a large speaker vs. a small speaker and whether it is easier to construct a better performing large speaker than a small speaker.

My experience is that in a small room, the small speaker can portray more intimacy or "exacting" detail due to the 'near field' listening experience ( Not usual for a large speaker in the same size room, although I suppose it may be possible)....I have NOT had this same experience in a large room, regardless of the size of speaker.
Not that there is anything wrong with a large room, as that enables the speaker ( usually a large speaker) to portray the width of the stage and the bottom octave or so more realistically. Like I said, you take your pick and choose your compromise.

Dave im a near field listener too and you're getting more direct vs. reflected sound and you're sitting close enough were the speakers beam the most at all frequencies which brings out the detail. the converse of that, from what i've heard out of speakers like the big avantegardes and accapellas which can project similar detail in a huge room and because they beam so well (a good thing actually) there's far less room 'interference' the only caveat is the seating positon - as is the case with all large speakers - which is way farther back.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Thanks for pointing my mistake in my answer - you should read frontwave in the text, as originally used by Toole . My fingers typed faster than my mind. The frontwave is related to every property of sound - timbre, image and so on.

BTW, Toole refers that many engineers listen this way - and regrets it. As he writes, but I have not quoted as I found it was not relevant, " but as they say, perhaps it is “good enough for rock-and-roll.”


Just corrected the post.

I think Mr. Toole needs to do some more listening. I have the set-up, and I have the rolling chair. I can, and do adjust the toe-in of the speakers and roll back to a more normal listening distance. The only thing that changes is the imaging. It becomes less vulnerable to small changes in the listening position and slightly less precise. That is all.

P

 

[RogerD]

Beam=directionality Good? Whenever my speakers beam, I have probably made a change,usually 99.9 pct of the music comes from behind the speakers. Illusion?

 

[DaveyF]

I would like to hear a small speaker have the "gestalt" of a large speaker. The larger speaker is capable of producing the power and majesty of a pipe organ,the scale is smaller but you can feel and sense the energy in the recording. Many times I have raised my clenched fists in approval as I am showered with energy of the final crescendo. Exhilarating!

Therein lies the conundrum....the large speaker in a large room has the ability to portray the "power and majesty" of a pipe organ in a more realistic way than the small speaker in the same room....No argument from me there. HOWEVER, IMO the large speaker in a large room does NOT have the ability to portray the intimate fine detail and intimacy of the small speaker in the small room ( mainly due to the size of the room).BUT this argument is irrelevant in the overall context of what I am saying. Neither big or small can produce both ends of the spectrum, as in the 'live' experience, with equal aplomb. BTW, IF you think that the scale is smaller in our rooms, I would agree....except i would say IMMENSELY smaller. Perhaps to the point of not really being accurate at all.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

If I may, let me add my less than par to USD $0.02CDN.

I absolutely believe that in most cases speakers cannot be all things and thereby cannot cover all of the harmonics that we'd like to hear. Some truly great speakers certainly do come close, but even then it can't come close to the actual live experience. We all know that and as a result we all make compromises, and this regardless of dollars available for one's purchase.

When I went looking for speakers I opted to focus on what a speaker could bring...not what it lacked. If I could somehow determine that first, then I'd be closer to my goal. I found those characteristics in several brands and that's when things started to get more interesting, and required some serious attention to the overall soundscape. After going back and forth I discovered one brand and model who's sound signature captured my attention while offering me the least amount of compromise. I made my decision and received the assurance of my dealer that I could take them back, should I not be happy within 30 days. Those 30 days have turned into almost 4 years!

Are the speakers I have the best at exposing the full dynamic range and emotion of a female singer or do they provide me with a truly accurate interpretation of strings on an acoustic guitar? Probably not, and likely far from it, but it's good enough for me because the dollars I spend on media are still most wonderfully interpreted.

You see, I don't fuss too much about what could be or should be, I just enjoy the music.

 

[RogerD]

Therein lies the conundrum....the large speaker in a large room has the ability to portray the "power and majesty" of a pipe organ in a more realistic way than the small speaker in the same room....No argument from me there. HOWEVER, IMO the large speaker in a large room does NOT have the ability to portray the intimate fine detail and intimacy of the small speaker in the small room ( mainly due to the size of the room).BUT this argument is irrelevant in the overall context of what I am saying. Neither big or small can produce both ends of the spectrum, as in the 'live' experience, with equal aplomb. BTW, IF you think that the scale is smaller in our rooms, I would agree....except i would say IMMENSELY smaller. Perhaps to the point of not really being accurate at all.

I agree about the scale....but the fine detail I'm not so sure. I have listened to many pipe organs and hearing the foot pedals and the wind power through the various pipes produces both energy extremes. A pipe organ can have the most delicate and beautiful sound,the ambient quality can be intoxicating,as the harmonics of each pipe plays in harmony of the whole.

In the end I think it matters on the recorded material chosen. I have yet to hear a small speaker and walk away saying that is the best sound I have ever heard.

Back in the early 70's the first big speaker I ever heard that I though was excellent was the Fulton Modular. Now I have come to realise that for my taste a multiple speaker array is necessary to play the "big" sound I enjoy. I base that system on a multiple driver speaker as the foundation,nothing out of the ordinary. Six Dynaudio drivers that are no longer made,but give plenty of detail and good articulate bass down to 40Hz. With the two subs I have,they can do the rest of the heavy lifting. Are there trade offs? Minimal is the way it has been designed.

 

[fas42]

The problem is not the design of the loudspeaker. The problem is air. Air resistance is proportional to the square of the velocity of the cone. Hence, a small, high-excursion driver will have much more difficulty coupling to the air to drive a soundwave to the listener's ear than a large driver at the same loudness.

Even at, say 90Hz, the cone of a small bookshelf loudspeaker (which should easily get down to 60Hz) is already "punching" through the air and causing air-borne distortion.

Gary, I've got a funny feeling I may have asked this before: anyway, what I'm interested in is your concept of "air-borne distortion", implying that the air itself is the core problem. Would you have any references here, or could you elaborate, that clarify what is being referred to?

Frank

 

[fas42]

And I agree with that. By the "front end" I'm assuming you mean the image. It has not stabilized. that's why the position of your head, when listening in the near field, is so critical. To put it another way, the sweet spot is extremely small. What I and the many, many engineers who do the majority of the mixing done in this world on near field monitors would disagree with is that it is not a good format for critical listening.

Tim

OK Tim, let's sort out what you mean by "the sweet spot is extremely small". Do you mean by this that the apparent position of instruments becomes abruptly less well defined, or low level detail of what is happening with regard to a certain sound source in the recording is lost, or you become aware that sound is emerging from a speaker driver rather than purely sitting in "space", or what?

As a side note, I've found it easy to get the "normal" central sweet spot, what's hard is expanding that area, because ear/brain then has a much harder time ignoring distortion emerging from the speaker, when the two sound sources are unbalanced ...

Frank

 

[RogerD]

OK Tim, let's sort out what you mean by "the sweet spot is extremely small". Do you mean by this that the apparent position of instruments becomes abruptly less well defined, or low level detail of what is happening with regard to a certain sound source in the recording is lost, or you become aware that sound is emerging from a speaker driver rather than purely sitting in "space", or what?

As a side note, I've found it easy to get the "normal" central sweet spot, what's hard is expanding that area, because ear/brain then has a much harder time ignoring distortion emerging from the speaker, when the two sound sources are unbalanced ...

Frank

You know Frank that it is possible to expand the so called sweet spot to the point of being non existant,for the wall of sound is far more realistic.

 

[fas42]

You know Frank that it is possible to expand the so called sweet spot to the point of being non existant,for the wall of sound is far more realistic.

Of course. But most people think in terms of sweet spots, so it's best to use these terms so there is some overlap of language meaning, for people who have systems working at various levels of performance. The friend I've mentioned a few times, he started with the classic small sweet spot, small speakers, small sound syndrome, and has steadily progressed to where he now has considerable "bigness" of sound, and at times he gets very close to disappearing speakers, it's probably 95% there. All with the same set of components, just doing rounds of adjusting this, experimenting with that. Far cheaper than the usual way of going about things ...

Frank

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

OK Tim, let's sort out what you mean by "the sweet spot is extremely small". Do you mean by this that the apparent position of instruments becomes abruptly less well defined, or low level detail of what is happening with regard to a certain sound source in the recording is lost, or you become aware that sound is emerging from a speaker driver rather than purely sitting in "space", or what?

As a side note, I've found it easy to get the "normal" central sweet spot, what's hard is expanding that area, because ear/brain then has a much harder time ignoring distortion emerging from the speaker, when the two sound sources are unbalanced ...

Frank

None of the above. the sweet spot I'm talking about is the one in which the phantom center appears to be centered. In a near field set up, as we've discussed above, it is centered when the listener is centered and moves with the listener. As you move further away from the speakers that sensation diminishes. You're able to shift around a bit more before the image begins to shift with you. I'm afraid it actually has to do with precise imaging, something that is eroded by distortion. No fodder here for your "eliminate small distortions and make the speakers disappear." A phantom center so physically palpable that it moves with the listener, back and forth in front of a space where there are no speakers. That, my eccentric friend, is the very essence of disappearing speakers, and my soldering iron is cold .

Tim

 

[fas42]

I'm afraid it actually has to do with precise imaging, something that is eroded by distortion. No fodder here for your "eliminate small distortions and make the speakers disappear." A phantom center so physically palpable that it moves with the listener, back and forth in front of a space where there are no speakers. That, my eccentric friend, is the very essence of disappearing speakers, and my soldering iron is cold .

Tim

I don't follow the logic here. We agree that low distortion is good, improves imaging, and the phantom centre, and the latter will create an impression of disappearing speakers; yet you pass on the "eliminate small distortions and make the speakers disappear" thing ...

So am I correct in saying you don't relate to, or don't experience, the illusion of the musical event occurring in a space beyond the line of the speakers, spread as far wide as the phase information from the microphone feeds generates? If you are a listening distance from and directly in the front of a speaker you perceive the sound coming from the drivers, rather than a general space beyond the speaker, where the speaker just happens to be an upright wooden box at the front of this area?

Ahhh, eccentricity, glorious eccentricity .... the world would be a duller place without such individuals !! :b

Frank

 

[JackD201]

For large scale, I only need to pull up a chair. For a large room, well, it needs to be a very well-damped room. And it's much damper in Manila than it is in Reno.

Tim

I think the word you're looking for is MUGGY

 

[JackD201]

+5

i've designed small bookshelf loudspeakers, and turned around and designed a 4-tower behemoth, and it is easier to make a large speaker sound small than to make a small loudspeaker sound large.

The problem is not the design of the loudspeaker. The problem is air. Air resistance is proportional to the square of the velocity of the cone. Hence, a small, high-excursion driver will have much more difficulty coupling to the air to drive a soundwave to the listener's ear than a large driver at the same loudness.

even at, say 90hz, the cone of a small bookshelf loudspeaker (which should easily get down to 60hz) is already "punching" through the air and causing air-borne distortion. That's why a large loudspeaker may sound more "relaxed" and "natural" even for not very demanding "female jazz vocals" which should be the forte of a pair of small bookshelf loudspeakers.

turbulence!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't follow the logic here. We agree that low distortion is good, improves imaging, and the phantom centre, and the latter will create an impression of disappearing speakers; yet you pass on the "eliminate small distortions and make the speakers disappear" thing ...

Frank, you know what I pass on -- your tweaks. We agree that minimizing noise and distortion enhances improves imaging. We disagree on how to minimize noise and distortion.

Tim