WHY are high-efficiency speakers are better at conveying emotion of music vs. audiophile vocabulary?

[wil]

Oh, I understood your post, and the point you were making. But you also made some presumptions here:

"It was sort of Peter that put everyone on edge with this thread on Natural Sound. Then others chimed in that somehow close as possible to Live Unamplified was supposed to be the goal. Well, maybe that is the wrong focus and the wrong goal."

I never wrote that anything is supposed to be the goal. And I never wrote about right and wrong. That opinion misinterprets or misrepresents my thread. Natural sound is only one approach and one goal of many possible ones. Obviously others have different approaches, and none are better or worse than any other in absolute terms. Better or worse is for the individual to decide for himself based on his own values. It is about a listener or hobbyist having a target and then following an approach to achieve it, or not achieving it. I recognize that some readers find the thread controversial and fully appreciate others follow different approaches.

You focus on might, or may, or possibly. That is fine, but where does it get us? Specifics usually lead to more focused discussions. @caesar asked a very specific question in his original post. You can agree or disagree, but simply re-asking if he is right or wrong does not get us very far? What is your actual opinion? What do you hear? Are you more emotionally engaged? It seems you have doubts.

It is easy to claim all systems are flawed. It gets interesting when people claim some systems are less flawed and then actually explain why they think so. I do not think it is erroneous to claim a high efficiency speaker is the way to build a system that conveys a high emotional attachment. In fact, I think it is a good way to approach that particular goal, but perhaps it is not the only way. I was emotionally attached to my former very inefficient systems too.

To me, the really interesting part of the original post is not whether a system is efficient or not, it is the question posed about a given system conveying the emotion of the music versus audiophile vocabulary. And as a bonus, I find it rather rich and somewhat ironic that The Absolute Sound got us all thinking about live unamplified music as the reference against which to judge system performance while also introducing us to the glossary of audiophile terms.

Peter, Natural sound (with the word natural capitalized) is being used to describe the approach you learned from DDK— is that right?

Do you see how using a term like natural to describe music playback, and then capitalizing and morphing the descriptor into a quasi brand amounts to co-opting the term?

“natural” is a word I use for my personal quest in music playback. It’s not attached to a particular audio expert’s philosophy, type of amplification, speaker design or power cables, etc.

 

[wil]

Yep. SQ totally sucks even if you get good seats, it won’t be like the acoustics you are used to

What’s that supposed to mean, or is it just meant to be snarky? If you need clarification, I’m not saying live sound always “sucks.” That should be obvious.

 

[PeterA]

Peter, Natural sound (with the word natural capitalized) is being used to describe the approach you learned from DDK— is that right?

Do you see how using a term like natural to describe music playback, and then capitalizing and branding the descriptor into a quasi brand amounts to co-opting the term?

“natural” is a word I use for my personal quest in music playback. It’s not attached to a particular audio expert’s philosophy, type of amplification, speaker design or power cables, etc.

Wil, Kingrex introduced natural sound to this discussion. I would rather discuss the subject in my system thread. I will move your question over there.

This is also an interesting thread. Can we discuss whether a specific type of speaker is better at conveying the emotion of music? The contrast with audiophile vocabulary is also quite fascinating. When we experience music and all the emotion that a system can convey to the listener, do we find ourselves breaking it up into bits and pieces so that we can describe it to others? The former seems to be about something higher than simply sound attributes.

A good system conveys the emotion of the music and does not make me analyze the bits and pieces of the sound or look up the audio file vocabulary.

The question is are some types of systems better at conveying the emotion of music?

 

[Kingrex]

So much hearsay. Maybe this maybe that. Are you just spouting off?

Tell you what Kingrex, why don't you make a positive case for what your goals are?

How about you make a case showing high efficiency speakers bring higher emotional engagement. You can't. So don't ask me to do the same. You have a preference for a type of sound.You like. As we all do.

I think what I have heard many times is that distortion causes listener fatigue. I would say a premise saying low distortion audio systems might be more emotionally engaging as you can sit, relax and listen longer. I don't see any correlation between high efficiency versus low efficiency and distortion. Levels. Maybe Ralph, or some other engineer can prove me wrong.

 

[Kingrex]

What’s that supposed to mean, or is it just meant to be snarky? If you need clarification, I’m not saying live sound always “sucks.” That should be obvious.

My wife consistently says listening to my stereo, she hears much better music than when we go to the symphony. The atmosphere at the symphony is far better. It does sound good. But the ability to immerse yourself like you're on the stage is not possible when you're sitting twenty or more rows back.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Wil, Kingrex introduced natural sound to this discussion.

no, you did.

I would rather discuss the subject in my system thread. I will move your question over there.

you chose that as the title to your system thread. and made a huge deal of it. no problem, it is what it is. neither a good or bad thing. and it's always going to follow you around whether you like it or not and be a part of the conversation. it will be a little background noise on any thread you participate in. no getting around it. you being here brings it in, not Rex. you trying to redirect it that back to your system thread is your prerogative, of course.

just my opinion.

This is also an interesting thread. Can we discuss whether a specific type of speaker is better at conveying the emotion of music? The contrast with audiophile vocabulary is also quite fascinating. When we experience music and all the emotion that a system can convey to the listener, do we find ourselves breaking it up into bits and pieces so that we can describe it to others?

who really does that? when i listen with friends the focus can vary based on whether we are listening to new vinyl and if we like the pressing or music, or maybe if it's new listeners in my room then what sort of music do they like, and just taking the top off with the music. just the experience and where it takes us to get the best session possible. i do think that an amplifier needs a great first watt, and the speaker needs to be able to be special with that first watt. otherwise something special is lost to some degree. but there is a wide area where that can happen. and lots of other things that the music might benefit from where there is quite a bit of variance in full frequency range and room capability.

how wide is the capability and is it limited in the types of music it can deliver with ease so there is that emotion still in the music? or does it break down into sound and the musical flow is diminished? this can matter to some.

The former seems to be about something higher than simply sound attributes.

sure.

A good system conveys the emotion of the music and does not make me analyze the bits and pieces of the sound or look up the audio file vocabulary.

people do say what comes to mind and it can be related to either instruments, vocals, dynamics, realism, or any of hundreds of comments that come to mind during a shared session. lots of wows and oohs and ahhs.

The question is are some types of systems better at conveying the emotion of music?

there are lots of paths to reproduced musical bliss. having a sufficiently efficient speaker so the amplification and power grid and system headroom are able to reveal all the nuance and life of the music makes a difference.

particular people have their sonic priorities and look for their own tells and emotive connections. there is no right or wrong to it. it's all subjective.

 

[microstrip]

My wife consistently says listening to my stereo, she hears much better music than when we go to the symphony. The atmosphere at the symphony is far better. It does sound good. But the ability to immerse yourself like you're on the stage is not possible when you're sitting twenty or more rows back.

Nice to know she is aware of a reality many audiophiles prefer to ignore.

The text bellow is quoted from a well known book on sound reproduction.

 

[PeterA]

Cesar, I would address your very interesting question from a different angle. I built my system around the electronics, not the speakers. Big powerful solid state amplifiers are not as good at conveying the emotion of music to me as is a really good SET. Therefore, I chose to find the speaker that works with my amps. This then necessitated an efficient, easy to drive speaker system. I haven’t really thought about audiophile vocabulary since.

Of course, others make different choices.

 

[hopkins]

Cesar, I would address your very interesting question from a different angle. I built my system around the electronics, not the speakers. Big powerful solid state amplifiers are not as good at conveying the emotion of music to me as is a really good SET. Therefore, I chose to find the speaker that works with my amps. This then necessitated an efficient, easy to drive speaker system. I haven’t really thought about audiophile vocabulary since.

Of course, others make different choices.

I build my system around the electronics, not the speakers.

All electronics introduce distortion.

Music conveys emotion regardless of the system (within reasonable limits).

The difference between systems can be described easily with audiophile vocabulary that most people understand.

 

[microstrip]

(...) A good system conveys the emotion of the music

Known since long, it is written in the first pages or even in the introduction of any textbook on sound reproduction. And some add : a better system will do it more frequently in more places - frequency and conditions (predictability) also matter.

and does not make me analyze the bits and pieces of the sound or look up the audio file vocabulary.

No problem. People only do it when they want to communicate efficiently with others or as a tool to understand or improve their systems. Some just by curiosity - they want to understand why they like (or dislike ...) systems.

The question is are some types of systems better at conveying the emotion of music?

Again, "better" in such perceptual matters implies a statistical analysis. As no one is doing it in WBF, probably it is "better" move away from such question or refine it.

 

[Kingrex]

FWIW I personally like horns. I like my open baffle. I have also heard Wilson and D'agostino, Gryphon, Audio Research that I liked. I am in no way saying one topology is superior to another when it comes to enjoyment. I am saying the opposite.

It does appear from the title and response of some people that they do feel a efficient speaker is superior. My point @tima Is I disagree one is better than the other. Call it personal evolution. I believe everyone has a personal gravitation that floats their boat. The fact that we have such great SS amps today that can muscle through a energy sucking crossover means there is no advantage to a high efficiency speaker. The 2 topology voice different. But what we enjoy to hear is simply a personal preference. And we have choices.

 

[tima]

you chose that as the title to your system thread. and made a huge deal of it. no problem, it is what it is. neither a good or bad thing. and it's always going to follow you around whether you like it or not and be a part of the conversation. it will be a little background noise on any thread you participate in. no getting around it. you being here brings it in, not Rex. you trying to redirect it that back to your system thread is your prerogative, of course.

Thanks to you and Al M.

You sound like a woman who has carried a grudge for 4 years.

 

[treitz3]

Let's please just stick to the thread topic...

Tom

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Thanks to you and Al M.

You sound like a woman who has carried a grudge for 4 years.

i respect Peter's perspective on his Natural Sound system thread. it's vibe is unique. distinctive. and over time it's part of his identity here.

i do not see it as anything bad or needing defense. but it does keep it top mind in interacting with him. he seems to embrace it as he should.

 

[andromedaaudio]

FWIW I personally like horns. I like my open baffle. I have also heard Wilson and D'agostino, Gryphon, Audio Research that I liked. I am in no way saying one topology is superior to another

People can just shop / buy what they like .
Its an open market luckily

 

[Al M.]

People can just shop / buy what they like .
Its an open market luckily

As long as they're not told what to buy and not to buy.

 

[andromedaaudio]

As long as they're not told what to buy and not to buy.

This is life on.planet earth .
No matter what they say its your wallet.

Osho the indian mystic always said billions of people have already gone before you dealing with more or less the same issues, iow dont take it all to serious

 

[Ron Resnick]

Can we discuss whether a specific type of speaker is better at conveying the emotion of music? The contrast with audiophile vocabulary is also quite fascinating. When we experience music and all the emotion that a system can convey to the listener, do we find ourselves breaking it up into bits and pieces so that we can describe it to others? The former seems to be about something higher than simply sound attributes.

A good system conveys the emotion of the music and does not make me analyze the bits and pieces of the sound or look up the audio file vocabulary.

The question is are some types of systems better at conveying the emotion of music?

How about you make a case showing high efficiency speakers bring higher emotional engagement.

I think sonic attributes (glossary style) and emotional engagement are two separate things, but they are related in the following way.

Emotional engagement is not, properly understood, a direct objective; it is a result or an effect.

The direct objective is whatever sonic cues idiosyncratically remind each of us of the sound of live music.* If each of us follows our preferred sonic cues like a roadmap to natural sound or to suspension of disbelief -- however you wish to think of it -- then the successful implementation in a stereo system of those preferred sonic cues will result in emotional engagement from reproduced music.

The sonic cues are the ingredients to a culinary recipe. The stereo system does the cooking. Emotional engagement is the resulting dish.

*For example, dynamics is a sonic cue which an audiophile may choose to maximize with very sensitive horn loudspeakers.

 

[Al M.]

This is life on.planet earth .
No matter what they say its your wallet.

Osho the indian mystic always said billions of people have already gone before you dealing with more or less the same issues dont take it all to serious

Yes, and for us it's mostly first-world problems. Nothing too serious indeed.

 

[tima]

Interesting you note as such. I agree we are a long way from live unamplified reproduction. So why waste your time trying to get there. It may be that attempting to reach something your not that near actually works against you. Maybe its better to use large amps and low efficiency speakers to recreate sound. Why not if Its all just a flavor. It was sort of Peter that put everyone on edge with this thread on Natural Sound. Then others chimed in that somehow close as possible to Live Unamplified was supposed to be the goal. Well, maybe that is the wrong focus and the wrong goal. Maybe its more about making a sound that humans gravitate too in order to relax. Live Unamplified might not be that sound. Simply having low distortion, a smooth frequency response and lots of bass to give rhythm and drive is a better sonic stimulation for the senses. Maybe there is a lot more "Emotion" in massive amps and low efficiency speakers. The OP premise has no basis in anything. Its just lobbing a concept into the crowd. It may be completly false and backwards. It may be high efficiency speakers are worse at conveying "Emotion".

So much hearsay. Maybe this maybe that. Are you just spouting off?
Tell you what Kingrex, why don't you make a positive case for what your goals are?

How about you make a case showing high efficiency speakers bring higher emotional engagement.You can't. So don't ask me to do the same.

I 've not said anything on that topic. Being orthogonal to yourself makes conversation seem impossible.