• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

The difference between good and great

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Remember that the data from the top speakers was used to define one of the inputs to the model (optimal predicted in room response?), so some of the correlation is induced by the methodology, not by the results (i.e., it is a self-fulfilling calculation).

That was exactly my point (not so directly stated) ;)

Plus, 87% isn't interpreted as a measure of explanatory power. That would be the square of the correlation coefficient (r-squared), or 76%.

This I had not realised - thanks for explaining.
 

Another Bob

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
80
Likes
128
Location
Madison, WI
When I was a salesperson in a stereo store many years ago, I became convinced that for every reasonably good speaker, there exists at least one recording which made that speaker sound amazing. But of course there are relatively few speakers that sound really good across a large number of recordings and musical genres. Similarly, although Harman research indicates that listeners can generally "hear through" the room and will prefer the "better" speaker regardless, there is little doubt that certain speaker designs are better suited to certain types of rooms. None of this gets us any closer to answering the original question, but it does mean that impressions derived from listening to just a few tracks in one particular setup must be taken with a grain of salt.

I have long felt that one of the differentiating factors between speakers was large-signal capability - perhaps some combination of compression and distortion. But as more reviews become available that include these measurements, the differences between speakers are smaller than I expected (except for very small speakers). Peter Aczel mentioned the concept of "wave launch" on a number of occasions, in the context of what makes a big speaker sound big, but I don't know of any way to quantify this or of any research that backs it up.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Peter Aczel mentioned the concept of "wave launch" on a number of occasions, in the context of what makes a big speaker sound big, but I don't know of any way to quantify this or of any research that backs it up.

You don't happen to have a reference do you? I'd be interested to try to work out what he's on about.
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,111
Likes
8,439
Location
NYC
All based on observation, of music, reproduction, and people. I'm sure you'd agree that even good reproduced sound is a million miles from the real thing, in terms of scale, bandwidth, dynamics, impact, volume, tone, timbre, and a dozen other things. Yet most folks seem very happy with what they're getting at home. How is that even possible without two separate but parallel sets of criteria?

E.g., my granddad went to the symphony when he could, and enjoyed chatting with his pals at the union hall, and at home loved his tabletop radio, which thumped away in the corner, all warm and chesty. He was a sentient human being, so he must have known that in real life orchestras and voices sounded different than his radio, yet he seemed to score both very highly, as if separately, in and of themselves - as if "music" was one thing, capable of being good or bad, and "loudspeaker music" was another thing entirely, to be judged on a different scale.

Reproduced sound is inevitably miniaturized, compressed, and limited ... to say it can be compared to the real thing on the same 1 - 10 scale seems to me absurd. There have to be two separate 1 - 10 scales, surely. A great orchestra in a great hall might score 9/10, and a great stereo in a great room might score 9/10 also - but on different scales completely. Do you disagree?

I do disagree with you, and agree with @andreasmaan.

I actually don't think I'm using a completely different set of criteria. Going to the philharmonic and opera are life to me, and the whole reason I got into audio was to try to replicate that experience. Like Andreaasmaaan, I think the key difference is in the spatial qualities. But good multichannel and binaural can make these differences get a lot smaller. If binaural audio had the chest-thumping physicality of live music, it'd be close to the perfect solo listening experience.

That's also just for orchestras. It's a lot easier for speakers to replicate, say solo instruments or voices and small ensembles. The issue is usually mostly a matter of how the recording interacts with the listening space.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on principle =]
 

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
I do disagree with you, and agree with @andreasmaan.

I actually don't think I'm using a completely different set of criteria. Going to the philharmonic and opera are life to me, and the whole reason I got into audio was to try to replicate that experience. Like Andreaasmaaan, I think the key difference is in the spatial qualities. But good multichannel and binaural can make these differences get a lot smaller. If binaural audio had the chest-thumping physicality of live music, it'd be close to the perfect solo listening experience.

That's also just for orchestras. It's a lot easier for speakers to replicate, say solo instruments or voices and small ensembles. The issue is usually mostly a matter of how the recording interacts with the listening space.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on principle =]

Always happy to disagree - with, in this case, the greatest possible respect for your work and experience. But I'm still not convinced. You seem to be saying if I hypnotized you, and you came around sitting in a chair, blindfolded, with music playing, you genuinely might not know if you were in Carnegie Hall with a live orchestra, or my living room with a CD. I think that's implausible. I think it's an example of subconsciously blending two entirely different contexts - which isn't helped by saying "the key difference is in the spatial qualities" - translated, that's saying, "the experiences are similar, except for the key dissimilarities" ... which reinforces my impression that you and others want or somehow need to conflate two things that remain stubbornly and regrettably far apart. No one loves having music at home more than me, but for all its virtues it's a pale, wan, subdued imitation of the real thing.

If, on the other hand, you feel you would know immediately whether you were in Carnegie Hall or my living room, then you're agreeing with me. You're agreeing that the facsimile is delightful, but instantly detectable as not being the real thing, for a thousand technical reasons we will never resolve.
 

raistlin65

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 13, 2019
Messages
2,279
Likes
3,421
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
I have been wondering about this for a while. I have some KEF Q300 speakers ($600) that I have lived with for 5 years after having had Dynaudio Sapphires ($16,000) for the previous 5 years (I got out of the audio obsession) Quite frankly, a lot of times, I really like the sound of the KEFs (with a sub) and wonder why I ever bought the Sapphires.

As a result, my theory is that, at some point, the differences among well-engineered speakers become very small (i.e., point of diminishing returns). At that point, the better speaker is the one that plays specific tracks in specific rooms better. It is entirely possible that a slight tilt up or down in frequency response actually works with or against the room or recording and makes them sound better or worse.

I also think that most recordings are pretty mediocre (at least the ones I listen to). And I don't think any speaker can address that. And better speakers might make it a bit worse.

I've always wondered what the listener tolerance is between grades of speakers when engaged in the aesthetic experience of listening to music?

Speaker and headphone so-called break-in is explained by psychological adjustment to the new sound. If you have speaker A and B, where one scores better based on Harman's metric (or whatever metric you want), how much worse does one have to be before it lessens the aesthetic experience? Once one moves past listening to the speaker with the music, and becomes immersed in the music listening.

Isn't there some adjustment that will happen if one takes the worse speaker home (because it's cheaper or better aesthetics)? And is it individualistic? Maybe I'm more sensitive to treble clarity. Maybe you are more sensitive to the amount of bass?
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
... there is little doubt that certain speaker designs are better suited to certain types of rooms.

Do you have opinions as to which types of loudspeaker designs may be suited to which types of rooms, within the context of home audio?
 

BenB

Active Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
284
Likes
446
Location
Virginia
I'm pretty sure we take into account the source when we assess sonic experiences. Here's an anecdote:
Tonight I've spent time listening to two sets of speakers: One is a small bookshelf, that I played without integrating my subwoofers. The other is my multi-way line arrays, with fully integrated subwoofers. Listening to the small bookshelf is very enjoyable. They provide a really big sound for their size. For reasons I wont get into, they sound better than they should (they're something of an experiment). The fact that I know I'm hearing a wide soundstage and (relatively) good dynamics, with decent low frequency extension for the size of the speaker adds to the enjoyment. In contrast, my line arrays were a no-compromise design. I designed and built a speaker that would be as free of flaws as I could (smooth frequency response, highly controlled dispersion vertically, wide dispersion horizontally, limited diffraction, low distortion, efficient with lots of overhead for dynamics, etc). When I switched from the bookshelf to the arrays the sonics improved substantially... but the enjoyment didn't increase quite as much. Of course the arrays sound better, they have so many advantages; they are a lot bigger, more complicated, and they cost a lot more. There's something fun about listening to something that sounds better than it should.

Having said that, we do the same thing for authentic sonic experiences: we consider the venue, our distance to the source, even the performer (Is it someone we know? Is it a young child playing really well... for their age?) With our eyes open, we're often aware of the reason that dynamics and clarity may be compromised in a certain environment, and we lower our expectations. Take away the visual reference, and give us just the recording, and we're left with the expectation that everything should be recorded in a manner consistent with our (individual) preferences. Then we lower our expectations based on the reproduction system.

So what makes a speaker great? I think there are lots of ways to be great. Great value. Great utility (great sound for the form factor). I think these things really enhance our experience of listening to the speaker, even though they don't impact the sound on an absolute scale.

But what makes a speaker great on an absolute scale? It has to surpass our sonic expectations consistently on the majority of music we listen to. We have different expectations for playback level that's free of compression and perceivable distortion. We have different expectations for low frequency extension. We have different expectations for dispersion (which may even change with genre and/or recording style used for the music). We have different expectations for spectral balance. We probably vary in which flaws ruin reproduction for us, and which flaws we're basically blind to. And we certainly differ in what music we choose to listen to, which plays into our other expectations.

Personally, I want what sounds like a contradiction: I want maximum clarity, but I also want the reflections that enhance engagement, and increase my perception of authenticity (since sounds in the real world will typically cause reflections that come from outside the 53% wedge in front of us, and capturing those but replaying them back within that wedge is unnatural). There are a few requirements for clarity in playback: a smooth frequency response contributes to clarity because peaks in frequency response can cause those frequencies to mask lower level sounds that they shouldn't, and dips obviously put the affected frequencies at risk of being masked. Freedom from reflections enhances clarity. Freedom from distortion and compression enhance clarity. I also need good imaging, which probably implies good manufacturing tolerances as much as anything else. I don't typically like waveguides that limit dispersion. Forced to choose between the clarity that reduced dispersion can provide, and the engagement of reflections (at least the lateral kind, and perhaps specifically the ipsilateral ones), I'll take the reflections... in my listening space anyway. In a smaller place with speakers placed too close to the sidewalls, my preference could certainly change.
 
Last edited:

Kvalsvoll

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Audio Company
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
878
Likes
1,643
Location
Norway
You don't happen to have a reference do you? I'd be interested to try to work out what he's on about.

Is related to directivity, which again defines the resulting parameters - p (measured spl), pv and power - of the radiated sound. So this is a real thing.
 

rkbates

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 24, 2020
Messages
137
Likes
151
Location
Down Under
All based on observation, of music, reproduction, and people. I'm sure you'd agree that even good reproduced sound is a million miles from the real thing, in terms of scale, bandwidth, dynamics, impact, volume, tone, timbre, and a dozen other things. Yet most folks seem very happy with what they're getting at home. How is that even possible without two separate but parallel sets of criteria?

E.g., my granddad went to the symphony when he could, and enjoyed chatting with his pals at the union hall, and at home loved his tabletop radio, which thumped away in the corner, all warm and chesty. He was a sentient human being, so he must have known that in real life orchestras and voices sounded different than his radio, yet he seemed to score both very highly, as if separately, in and of themselves - as if "music" was one thing, capable of being good or bad, and "loudspeaker music" was another thing entirely, to be judged on a different scale.

Reproduced sound is inevitably miniaturized, compressed, and limited ... to say it can be compared to the real thing on the same 1 - 10 scale seems to me absurd. There have to be two separate 1 - 10 scales, surely. A great orchestra in a great hall might score 9/10, and a great stereo in a great room might score 9/10 also - but on different scales completely. Do you disagree?
I tend to agree, and would like to add another dimension - the musician themselves. I've been to many concerts where the artist (as heard on a recording) is quite good, but when they are in front of a live audience they are just elevated to another level.
 

Duke

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
1,523
Likes
3,745
Location
Princeton, Texas
Personally, I want what sounds like a contradiction: I want maximum clarity, but I also want the reflections that enhance engagement, and increase my perception of authenticity... Freedom from reflections enhances clarity... forced to choose between the clarity that reduced dispersion can provide, and the engagement of reflections (at least the lateral kind, and perhaps specifically the ipsilateral ones), I'll take the reflections...

I see that you have thought about this a great deal.

Imo the arrival time of the reflections also plays a significant role in whether they are beneficial or detrimental:

"The earlier and the greater in level the first room reflections are, the worse they are. This aspect of sound perception is controversial. Some believe that all reflections are good because they increase the listener's feeling of space – they increase the spaciousness of the sound. While it is certainly true that all reflections add to spaciousness, the very early ones (< 10 ms.) do so at the sake of imaging and coloration... The first reflections in small rooms must be thought of as a serious problem that causes coloration and image blurring. These reflections must be considered in the [loudspeaker] design and should be also be considered in the room as well." - Earl Geddes

"The earlier a reflection arrives the more it contributes to masking the direct sound." - David Griesinger

"When presence is lacking the earliest reflections are the most responsible." - David Griesinger

"Envelopment is the holy grail of concert hall design. When reproducing sound in small spaces [home listening rooms], envelopment is often absent." - David Griesinger

"Envelopment is perceived when the ear and brain can detect TWO separate streams: A foreground stream of direct sound, and a background stream of reverberation. Both streams must be present if sound is perceived as enveloping." - David Griesinger

The impression I get from the foregoing is that early reflections are generally undesirable while late reflections are generally desirable (assuming of course that they are spectrally correct).

Imo the contradiction you articulate translates into an interesting design challenge, as wide-pattern speakers tend to have too much energy in the early reflections, while narrow-pattern speakers tend to have insufficient energy in the late reflections.
 
Last edited:

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,201
Likes
11,817
. Going to the philharmonic and opera are life to me, and the whole reason I got into audio was to try to replicate that experience.

I was a regular concert-goer to the local symphony too. (Not so much any more for various reasons).

I've mentioned a number of times on the forum that, compared to the real thing, whether it's a solo acoustic guitar, sax, trombone, drums, whatever, I find reproduced sound in most consumer hi-fi systems to be diminished toy versions. So it would seem to follow that a hi fi system would be least successful for a whole orchestra.

And yet...

I've been happily surprised numerous times with various speakers I've owned at how close-to-convincing they can be with orchestral music. That is to the sense of being there.

The reason is, like I've also mentioned before, is that I'm not expecting full realism from a sound system given the limitations. But something more like "believability" in the sense that one can be sucked in to the believability of a movie while watching. If you do the direct comparison between the images on a big flat screen with real life, the diversion is obvious. But if a movie has enough of certain characteristics YOU find to be realistic or believable (whether acting, script, set design, cinematography, whatever), then those are enough to suck you in to the illusion, the differences from real life falling in to the background during the experience.

I can get that from some symphonic playback in my system sometimes. I tend to use speakers that really soundstage and image well - so the whole wall behind can just melt away in to whatever picture is on the recording. With a good symphonic recording, if I close my eyes when listening as I often do and imagine I'm at the symphony, and if I do a little adjustment for the scale - usually I imagine I'm in a further seat, say in the balcony, then the illusion of "being there" listening to a symphony can be rather amazing. So it's an interplay of my the imagination I can bring to the experience, along with what the playback system/recording can bring to meet my expectations.

napilopez, I wonder how close you get to experiencing something believable in your system with symphonic music or other types?
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,111
Likes
8,439
Location
NYC
When I was a salesperson in a stereo store many years ago, I became convinced that for every reasonably good speaker, there exists at least one recording which made that speaker sound amazing. But of course there are relatively few speakers that sound really good across a large number of recordings and musical genres. Similarly, although Harman research indicates that listeners can generally "hear through" the room and will prefer the "better" speaker regardless, there is little doubt that certain speaker designs are better suited to certain types of rooms. None of this gets us any closer to answering the original question, but it does mean that impressions derived from listening to just a few tracks in one particular setup must be taken with a grain of salt.

I have long felt that one of the differentiating factors between speakers was large-signal capability - perhaps some combination of compression and distortion. But as more reviews become available that include these measurements, the differences between speakers are smaller than I expected (except for very small speakers). Peter Aczel mentioned the concept of "wave launch" on a number of occasions, in the context of what makes a big speaker sound big, but I don't know of any way to quantify this or of any research that backs it up.

I think upper-bass and low-mid directivity has a lot to do with the apparent 'bigness' of a speaker too. I remember the 8C sounding bigger than they are, perhaps because of the cardioid constant directivity.

I think @Kvalsvoll was the one who talked about this once, about how low end directivity also affects the transient response and that you can't completely match tonality for both continuous signals and transient signals for speakers of different sizes.

And if course, more controlled directivity on the lower mids and bass means less adverse room interaction.

I was a regular concert-goer to the local symphony too. (Not so much any more for various reasons).

I've mentioned a number of times on the forum that, compared to the real thing, whether it's a solo acoustic guitar, sax, trombone, drums, whatever, I find reproduced sound in most consumer hi-fi systems to be diminished toy versions. So it would seem to follow that a hi fi system would be least successful for a whole orchestra.

And yet...

I've been happily surprised numerous times with various speakers I've owned at how close-to-convincing they can be with orchestral music. That is to the sense of being there.

The reason is, like I've also mentioned before, is that I'm not expecting full realism from a sound system given the limitations. But something more like "believability" in the sense that one can be sucked in to the believability of a movie while watching. If you do the direct comparison between the images on a big flat screen with real life, the diversion is obvious. But if a movie has enough of certain characteristics YOU find to be realistic or believable (whether acting, script, set design, cinematography, whatever), then those are enough to suck you in to the illusion, the differences from real life falling in to the background during the experience.

I can get that from some symphonic playback in my system sometimes. I tend to use speakers that really soundstage and image well - so the whole wall behind can just melt away in to whatever picture is on the recording. With a good symphonic recording, if I close my eyes when listening as I often do and imagine I'm at the symphony, and if I do a little adjustment for the scale - usually I imagine I'm in a further seat, say in the balcony, then the illusion of "being there" listening to a symphony can be rather amazing. So it's an interplay of my the imagination I can bring to the experience, along with what the playback system/recording can bring to meet my expectations.

napilopez, I wonder how close you get to experiencing something believable in your system with symphonic music or other types?

I definitely agree with you on the notion that a speaker needs to sound believable and not necessarily a replica of the real thing. But at the same time, I do really think that given enough SPL capability and a flat-enough response for your listening setup, most of what makes a speaker sound different from a live performance comes down to spatial cues.

For symphonic music, honestly some of the best sound I've had is with Yamaha's Dolby Atmos CinemaDSP up sampling. With atmos and atmos-esque setups, I think the sense of height via later 'reflections,' and reverberations seeming to travel through a 3D space can be majorly convincing. The yamaha a3080 has a few cathedral presets, for example, that I've found can do a fantastic job with choral music because the reverberations seem to literally travel upwards.

The annoying part is having to match the DSP to different content. Yamaha introduced an 'AI' to try to pick the right settings, but it's not as smart as I'd like it to be yet.

Imo the only way to be a fully convincing experience with large-scale recordings is via multichannel or binaural. But it can still be believable -- as if the orchestra is compressed. When I listen to opera on my desktop setup, for instance, it almost sounds like I'm listening to an acoustic 'diorama'. The sources sound tangibly real, just tiny, as if you could compress a full orchestra and cavalcade of singers into the space of a desk.

Conversely, I've also had times where I've noticed my HiFi listening color my impressions of live music too! For example, I've often noticed that in an orchestral setting, sources are not as 'pinpoint' sharp as they might be in my own listening at home. I know it doesn't fully make sense to apply a term like 'imaging' to a live orchestra, but I do genuinely think that, at least in some seats of the hall, it's harder to position and pick apart instruments than it might be in my own bedroom lol.
 

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,308
Location
Midwest, USA
If, on the other hand, you feel you would know immediately whether you were in Carnegie Hall or my living room, then you're agreeing with me. You're agreeing that the facsimile is delightful, but instantly detectable as not being the real thing, for a thousand technical reasons we will never resolve.

All of those reasons are resolvable technically, but probably not commercially.
 

Senior NEET Engineer

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
538
Likes
591
Location
San Diego
I think upper-bass and low-mid directivity has a lot to do with the apparent 'bigness' of a speaker too. I remember the 8C sounding bigger than they are, perhaps because of the cardioid constant directivity.

Interesting observation.

I would have expected constant directivity to reduce the "bigness" due to the lower ratio of reflected vs direct sound. Also I would have expected sub bass extension to make a greater difference in "bigness", because that is what usually separates small from big speakers in frequency response.

I set my G25HP 5 dB too low once, and it single handedly collapsed the soundstage. Just sounded like tiny speakers with 1 dimension from left to right. Raised it back up and all the soundstage depth and envelopment came back. I think a lot of passive bookshelf speakers struggle with this. The LS50 Meta for example starts rolling off at 90hz...
 
Last edited:

Diablogt

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
6
Likes
7
Great is a vague expression. I understand the measurements are there to quantify speakers’ sound “quality” and they are indeed tremendously helpful. However, there is no standardization of “greatness”. Its very subjective to each person on the definition of greatness so chasing a standardization even with all the data in the world is just a waste of time. There is little doubt that a +-1.5db 20-20K speaker is in theory a better speaker than a +-2db one. But if the former is $15k and the later is $1.5k, which one is “greater”? Even if they are at the same price, what if the flatter one has 0.2% higher distortion across the FR, which one is “greater”? I bet in this forum, the answer is divided, let alone 7B people.

For me, with such a subjective thing as sound, the variability of taste is what makes this world colorful and enjoyable. It would suck if all speakers had the same sound, regardless of how perfect it is.
 

More Dynamics Please

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
562
Likes
752
Location
USA
As might be assumed from my chosen screen name decades of listening have caused me to develop more appreciation for speakers with greater dynamic performance. This personal experience was reinforced by reading an interview with JBL's Greg Timbers in which he stated:
I believe that solid Dynamic behavior is most important to get lifelike sound. Dynamics require high efficiency since transducers are pitiful in energy conversion. I also believe that sound staging is extremely important. I think natural midrange and bass presentation precedes the treble range. Of course all things have to be balanced!

https://positive-feedback.com/interviews/greg-timbers-jbl/
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,201
Likes
11,817
Imo the only way to be a fully convincing experience with large-scale recordings is via multichannel or binaural.

That's certainly an understandable take.

Still, while I do have a surround sound set up, I am still finding my 2 channel can produce the more convincing illusion. Part of that is definitely that my surround system isn't the latest/greatest. It's an old Denon AV reciever with various surround processing, or discrete surround, and I haven't implemented Dolby atmos, nor am I listening to discretely recorded surround music recordings (with the exception of movie scores in films).

But that said, I'm not finding I need those extra recorded, or processed, reflections added by other channels, for believability. I can play with the acoustics in my room, moving around curtains etc, so that I can get just the right mix where the sound has some airy liveness (room sound) but without my small room sound signature dominating the recording. In other words, the effect is actually listening to a wide open, large space for symphonies, hearing horn sections etc "through a big space." That's why it's been so easy to "believe" to a degree.

When I listen to opera on my desktop setup, for instance, it almost sounds like I'm listening to an acoustic 'diorama'. The sources sound tangibly real, just tiny, as if you could compress a full orchestra and cavalcade of singers into the space of a desk.

Yes I've certainly experienced just that "miniaturized orchestra" phenomenon! In fact, bear with me for an audiophile moment: When I was reviewing a pair of Waveform Mach Solo speakers (wide, even dispersion design from a egg-like mid/tweet enclosure) I used them with a Bryston amp as recommended by the manufacturer (he was against tube amps). They produced an astonishing clarity and "liveness" of sound with the exception that, especially with symphonic music, I was getting the impression of the "symphony brought in to my small room" vs a window looking at a big symphony. So it gave the impression of miniaturized symphonies appearing around and behind the speakers.

At one point I tried a tube amp I had...not the most accurate thing around I think...and it practically "solved" that issue. It's like the imagine just broke free of my room, and symphonic music now gave the impression of "hearing something big over a long distance" rather than "something small over a small distance." Now, presuming for argument the tube amp altered the sound at all, if it even just screwed a bit with the tonality it may have produced, say, a small dip in just the right high frequency area to reduce the slight "dryness" and forwardness of the sound. And even a teeny objective effect like this could have a large subjective effect, of turning that little switch where the mind perceives distance differently.
Very similar to how a very slight movement of my curtains can alter this effect in my room.

I don't really know of course, just speculating, but I found it truly intriguing. (And the speaker manufacturer, upon hearing that tube amp paired with his speakers, had his anti-tube-amp bias shaken quite a bit by the experience).


Conversely, I've also had times where I've noticed my HiFi listening color my impressions of live music too! For example, I've often noticed that in an orchestral setting, sources are not as 'pinpoint' sharp as they might be in my own listening at home. I know it doesn't fully make sense to apply a term like 'imaging' to a live orchestra, but I do genuinely think that, at least in some seats of the hall, it's harder to position and pick apart instruments than it might be in my own bedroom lol.

I always find other people's impressions about live orchestras interesting. Many feel there isn't "imaging" per se as we experience with hi-fi.
Yet my experience was that I very much perceived imaging, similar to how I hear it with good orchestral recordings. But part of that depends on where I'd sit, and I tend to favor vivid instrumental timbres and scale, so I tended to sit close to orchestras when I could (often closing my eyes).
Which is another reason I actually enjoy closely-mic'd orchestra recordings that, to others sound "wrong" and not "realistic like you hear in the hall."
 

Kvalsvoll

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Audio Company
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
878
Likes
1,643
Location
Norway
I think upper-bass and low-mid directivity has a lot to do with the apparent 'bigness' of a speaker too. I remember the 8C sounding bigger than they are, perhaps because of the cardioid constant directivity.

I think @Kvalsvoll was the one who talked about this once, about how low end directivity also affects the transient response and that you can't completely match tonality for both continuous signals and transient signals for speakers of different sizes.

And if course, more controlled directivity on the lower mids and bass means less adverse room interaction.

This is all connected - radiation pattern affects speaker-room interaction.

Another important parameter for big - or realistic - sound is of course capacity. Sufficinet capacity to avoid compression on transient peaks makes a huge difference.
 
Top Bottom