Which bookshelf crossover (non-DSP) provides highest performance under $2,500? Acoustic Energy AE1?

[mel]

That doesn’t really matter that much. At arms length there still is a table in between that has quite a big influence. It’s not for nothing that the Genelec’s have special switches to compensate for that.

I came across this. I have not hear the song, but the name matched your handle.

"Under My Voodoo" by Sublime,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lexical_vocables_in_music#Popular_music

 

[YSC]

Thanks for the correction. Can you give an actual music example? Where or how would I typically hear this? How do I listen for this?

I have been playing with this theory about vocalizing sounds, to hear deeper into the music. The principles are based on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocktail_party_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoword#Nonsense_syllables

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scat_singing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lexical_vocables_in_music

it's not the matter of how to hear this or so. maybe let me explain this way.

A music track, supposedly properly recorded and mixed, should sound right/correct, or simply put, sounds like music which you enjoy. this should be the first assumption.

next, you will hear it as muddy or boomy or harsh depends on irregular frequencies, like say reduced bass, boosted highs or so, as the peaks will outdo what was supposed to be pleasant sounding music

IRL those peaks and dips do occur a lot due to badly designed, not flat/linear speakers, AND the room modes where all the stuffs around reflect and interact with your sound sourse (speaker), that's why in showrooms it usually sounds nicer than in your room, coz a showroom was usually properly treated without crap lying around randomly like what is home.

As a result, ideally you would be better off most of the time with a flat speaker able to produce all frequencies equally being put in your room, so you ironed out the speaker characteristics as a variable, next step you will need your mic and calibrate what room modes you have to iron out the outlier peaks (dips can't be EQed as it's reflection cancellation, boosting the frequency won't help out the cancellation backwave).

After these your music should sound "right" and "what the artist wanted you to hear" as that's what they found nice in the studio and put into the record.

Now the HiFi myths comes, we individuals would have different preference due to mindset/hearing ability or so, someone likes bass a lot and someone like highs, so after calibrating the speakers to in room flat or a target curve you can still modify that to taste if you found most of your favorite music sounds nicer to you that way, it's your choice, but that could only be started by making everything sound "correct" in your room in the first place.

For bad recordings like old vinyl or so, there will be no general way to "improve" the sound, like Tabasco don't make every food more delicious. you can maybe say iron out a specific known defect in studio A by applying counter "additives" to them but that's individual calibration, which is mostly impossible coz the recording scene and equipment was long gone/altered to be studied and get some calibration files for this.

And from your links, you can make certain frequencies stand out, but that's not hearing deeper into the music, it's just changing the music all together, music is the blend of all frequencies at the exact ratio to how it's recorded, boosting here and there is like adding favor to a general dish, that by no means is hearing/understanding deeper

 

[voodooless]

I came across this. I have not hear the song, but the name matched your handle.

"Under My Voodoo" by Sublime,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lexical_vocables_in_music#Popular_music

That’s actually quite the opposite of my nickname

 

[mel]

it's not the matter of how to hear this or so. maybe let me explain this way.

A music track, supposedly properly recorded and mixed, should sound right/correct, or simply put, sounds like music which you enjoy. this should be the first assumption.

next, you will hear it as muddy or boomy or harsh depends on irregular frequencies, like say reduced bass, boosted highs or so, as the peaks will outdo what was supposed to be pleasant sounding music

IRL those peaks and dips do occur a lot due to badly designed, not flat/linear speakers, AND the room modes where all the stuffs around reflect and interact with your sound sourse (speaker), that's why in showrooms it usually sounds nicer than in your room, coz a showroom was usually properly treated without crap lying around randomly like what is home.

As a result, ideally you would be better off most of the time with a flat speaker able to produce all frequencies equally being put in your room, so you ironed out the speaker characteristics as a variable, next step you will need your mic and calibrate what room modes you have to iron out the outlier peaks (dips can't be EQed as it's reflection cancellation, boosting the frequency won't help out the cancellation backwave).

After these your music should sound "right" and "what the artist wanted you to hear" as that's what they found nice in the studio and put into the record.

Now the HiFi myths comes, we individuals would have different preference due to mindset/hearing ability or so, someone likes bass a lot and someone like highs, so after calibrating the speakers to in room flat or a target curve you can still modify that to taste if you found most of your favorite music sounds nicer to you that way, it's your choice, but that could only be started by making everything sound "correct" in your room in the first place.

For bad recordings like old vinyl or so, there will be no general way to "improve" the sound, like Tabasco don't make every food more delicious. you can maybe say iron out a specific known defect in studio A by applying counter "additives" to them but that's individual calibration, which is mostly impossible coz the recording scene and equipment was long gone/altered to be studied and get some calibration files for this.

And from your links, you can make certain frequencies stand out, but that's not hearing deeper into the music, it's just changing the music all together, music is the blend of all frequencies at the exact ratio to how it's recorded, boosting here and there is like adding favor to a general dish, that by no means is hearing/understanding deeper

I have been reading about the neurology of music lately. Neural and blood brain flow imaging is used to gain a better understanding of regions of the brain responsible for music processing. I've been experimenting with concepts. The cocktail party effect informs us that hearing is selective. The auditory regions of the brain have their own kind of "crossover filter".

I find that I experience the same piece of music very differently when I focus on just the melody, rhythm or harmony. I like comparing different renditions of the same music piece, because they are very different experience of the same music. I use pseudowords as a tool to that end.

Much, if not most, of music processing is unconscious, processed in "implicit memory". I mostly listen to music with "far field attention", while my "near field attention" is focused on something other than music.

I notice sometimes that my mind shifts focus to melody, rhythm or harmony all by itself. Something is triggered in my unconscious mind to interrupt my main conscious process. At that point, I get this urge to shift the main focus of my attention to music. I get an urge to filter out the melody, rhythm or harmony parts that obscure the interesting part of music. "Localization" is the audio term.

Some music does this explicitly. The Christmas song, Little Drummer Boy, comes to mind. The "Pa rum pum pum pum" pseudowords focuses my attention away from the harmony or melody to the rhythm. I want to hear the bass or drums for some sort of confirmation.

This is a good example of triggers that switch focus from melody, harmony or rhythm.

 

[mononoaware]

My traditional passive bookshelf speakers, with a subwoofer, overwhelms my bedroom. I am leery of traditional bookshelf sized speakers.

Also do my listening in a small room.
Studio monitors have been great as they are typically subdued in the bass region (not lean but also not bloated) compared to consumer speakers.
I did some experimenting with studio monitor position, but I did not need to adjust the low-frequency shelf setting, it stays at 0dB (options: -2dB, +2dB).
I could go one step further by adding low-frequency DSP correction, but in my occasional critical listening I have found no need for it.

I suspect a subwoofer will easily overwhelm a small room, and I have concluded I do not need it.

I have not found a speaker sized between the tiny A3 (4" in width x 7" in height), and a (21" x 3") soundbar. Cabinet volume and driver throw might be the most salient criteria?

These tiny active speakers produce a surprisingly big sound. I attribute that to driver throw and active amplification. The power consumption by the crossover configuration also plays a significant role.

If you are worried about driver throw overwhelming a small room, Studio monitors are what you are looking for.
I think they are less likely (as long as you go for the right sized model) to excite audible issues at low frequencies, compared to consumer sound-signature.

I was also initially worried about having room problems, but the controlled bass of Adam Audio monitors was a welcome surprise.
At first you may think the bass sounds too neutral, but soon you will realise that the bass boosted sound-signature of most consumer gear was masking all the detail in the bass.
After years of listening to them, I have not experienced any audible issues I thought needed to fixed.
Keep in mind this is in a small room with objects inside.
If your room is mostly empty and with a hard floor you may run into another level of issues regarding sound.

 

[mononoaware]

I listen to music at normal voice conversation level.

I also mostly listen at low-SPL.
Some advice is to purchase from a retailer who accepts change of mind, or even a local professional gear shop willing to let you take home to trial some speakers?

Best way to test your thoughts (cross-over type) and hearing (acoustic issues) is to try speakers in the room you talk about.

 

[mel]

I also mostly listen at low-SPL.
Some advice is to purchase from a retailer who accepts change of mind, or even a local professional gear shop willing to let you take home to trial some speakers?

Best way to test your thoughts (cross-over type) and hearing (acoustic issues) is to try speakers in the room you talk about.

I agree.

I bought all my equipment from the same high end dealer. He told me "Navis" is special order only. "They get very few requests for high end actives."

I think Best Buy makes it too difficult for them to compete.

 

[mel]

That’s actually quite the opposite of my nickname

I realized that. Sorry, I have been on this "CVC" pseudo word kick lately.

The CVC in VooDoo is "Voo" "Doo". The strange thing about some sounds is that they conjure up emotions, as well as tones. The "oo" have an ominous, bass feel to them.

Other onomatopoeia words, like woofer, are related. "Boom" is another

The "I" and "e" vowels are higher register and not so scary.

 

[mel]

I learned just how powerful reflected sound is. The train honks its horn on the opposite side of my building . The horn warning bounces off the building across the street. The resonance is different, though. I had to double check that the horn actually points towards the rear of the train. A rear facing horn is protected from oncoming things, like rain.

The sound of fear is a shrill "ahhhh" that commands the attention of everyone. I wish I had counted the "h"s. Because it sounded closer to a dozen "h"s. Loudness communicates the intensity of that emotion. Lots of information in sound. That's as close as the human voice comes to being a horn. Everyone understands the meaning, because that sound is encoded in neurons as the symbol for fear. The instinctive reaction is to run to the source of the sound to help the damsel in distress.

I listened to kids screaming on the roller coaster ride while passing by on my bike.

The kids certainty don't say: "Please, stop the ride, because I am scared". They scream CVC pseudo words to express their emotions.

 

[mel]

A symphonic poem is another type of music that resembles speech. Chick Corea does a few on this album. The piano sounds like its is having a conversation with itself.

A symphonic poem or tone poem is a piece of orchestral music, usually in a single continuous movement, which illustrates or evokes the content of a poem, short story, novel, painting, landscape, or other (non-musical) source. The German term Tondichtung (tone poem) appears to have been first used by the composer Carl Loewe in 1828. The Hungarian composer Franz Liszt first applied the term Symphonische Dichtung to his 13 works in this vein.

While many symphonic poems may compare in size and scale to symphonic movements (or even reach the length of an entire symphony), they are unlike traditional classical symphonic movements, in that their music is intended to inspire listeners to imagine or consider scenes, images, specific ideas or moods, and not (necessarily) to focus on following traditional patterns of musical form such as sonata form. This intention to inspire listeners was a direct consequence of Romanticism, which encouraged literary, pictorial and dramatic associations in music. According to the musicologist Hugh Macdonald, the symphonic poem met three 19th-century aesthetic goals: it related music to outside sources; it often combined or compressed multiple movements into a single principal section; and it elevated instrumental program music to an aesthetic level that could be regarded as equivalent to, or higher than opera.[1] The symphonic poem remained a popular composition form from the 1840s until the 1920s, when composers began to abandon the genre.

 

[richard12511]

I am not exactly sure of your budget but at the cost amount of Elac Navis & KEF LS50Wii you could quite easily jump into well received studio monitors series and benefit from the longevity/reliability they bring.

I personally feel that the LS50 Meta is a better value than the LS50 WII. $2,000/pair cheaper, and I honestly don't see a real difference in the measurements. In this case, the passive version crossover seems sufficient to basically match the active crossover in the active version. Maybe the active version has better time domain performance?

That said, if one wants a nice external amp and doesn't already own one, that knocks the difference down to ~$1000 and removes the need for an AVR/Amp(since one can stream directly to the actives). Actually, I do see the value there. Lots of other good options at $5,000/pair or just above, though. The Mesanovic MTM10 is only $1000 more, with near 20Hz in room performance.

 

[mel]

I personally feel that the LS50 Meta is a better value than the LS50 WII. $2,000/pair cheaper, and I honestly don't see a real difference in the measurements. In this case, the passive version crossover seems sufficient to basically match the active crossover in the active version. Maybe the active version has better time domain performance?

That said, if one wants a nice external amp and doesn't already own one, that knocks the difference down to ~$1000 and removes the need for an AVR/Amp(since one can stream directly to the actives). Actually, I do see the value there. Lots of other good options at $5,000/pair or just above, though. The Mesanovic MTM10 is only $1000 more, with near 20Hz in room performance.

Solfège (do, re, mi, fa, so(l), la, and ti (or si) may be a simple way to compare sonic qualities. The sound is encoded in the syllable, so the sound is unambiguous. Measuring or perceiving should provide consistent results. Two sides of the same coin. In computer terms, Solfège is a "regular expression" or pattern that can be generated, given rules and syntax.

One fundamental question that may be resolved is how a specific crossover colors or does not color sound. Just listen to how each syllable sounds. Is one syllable or range stressed over the others? You could refer to the crossover coloration by the stressed syllable, or range. Most likely a range.

A warm coloration has been attributed to the Navis ARB-51. I suspect something like the "do, re" part is probably emphasized over the "mi, fa, so, la, ti" part. Measuring loudness with a dB meter might provide a straightforward answer. Calibrating the scale with a parametric EQ DAC, like RME ADI2 might be a way to graph crossover coloration. I believe I have a precise way to color speaker sound to achieve a euphonic result.

I don't hear equal loudness for the syllables on this 55 second recording, for either the guitar or vocals. I don't hear a sequential tilt towards warmth or brightness, on my AudioEngine A3s. The A3 is a passive crossover with a class AB amplifier. Something is wrong. I didn't expect these results. I will measure with my sound meter, when I get the time.

• Rhythm. Bass, piano, drums and vocals
• The resonance on this recording is remarkable.
• The dynamic range is remarkable.
• A beautiful voice that carries clearly for an unusually long distance.
• I like the instruments and another from the same album.
  • His website.
• Organ version that carries far.
• Douçaine is strange sounding.
• A piano rendition.
  • I favor piano and drums because few instruments span the entire frequency spectrum.
  • I like this one.
• Exceptional resonance.
• Another good guitar with clear vocals.
  • Guitar
• Bells and great resonance
• Explicitly illustrative of syllables
• Sounds of nature

Resonance may answer your question: "Maybe the active version has better time domain performance?".

European cathedral recordings are excellent for that purpose. UK has many famous ones. Gabrieli is good for this purpose. The Antiphonal Music of Gabrieli is one of my favorite recordings. My understanding is a different brass ensemble was recorded into each channel. Antiphonal means call and response. Recorded in Venice.

The Venetian polychoral style was a type of music of the late Renaissance and early Baroque eras which involved spatially separate choirs singing in alternation. It represented a major stylistic shift from the prevailing polyphonic writing of the middle Renaissance, and was one of the major stylistic developments which led directly to the formation of what is now known as the Baroque style. A commonly encountered term for the separated choirs is cori spezzati—literally, separated choirs.

Solfège syllables are all CVC pseudo words, as they start with a Consonant and end in a Vowel or Consonant. Eleven letters might be sufficient to create a minimal music alphabet for CVC pseudo words. But, without "w", would not represent many sounds of nature:

• Woofer - bass.
  • An "oofer".
  • Dogs would "oof".
  • Cats would "meo"
• Tweeter - treble.
  • A "Teeter".
  • Birds would "teet".

• "a, e, i, o, u"
• "b, c, d, f, g, h, j, k, l, m, n, p, q, r, s, t, v, w, x, y, z"
  • three groups of adjacent letters.
• Sorting pseudo words by consonant doesn't make sense, because it disorders.
  • do
  • fa
  • la
  • mi
  • re
  • so(l)
  • ti (or si)
• Grouping by vowel/ending is more useful.
  • Rhyming is a pseudo word function.
  • Pseudo words have a different rules from valid language words.
  • A
    • fa
    • la
  • E
    • re
    • E is singular
  • I
    • mi
    • ti
  • O
    • do
    • so(l)

Ut queant laxis is the origin of the Solfège scale. This chant, in any of its numerous renditions, might suffice to understand crossover coloration: Play the chant.

​

A Tidal "Master" recording. Tidal search results return a long list of renditions that I find useful. Just playing the "Tracks" search results is interesting.

[/QUOTE]

Audiation is a term Gordon coined in 1975 to refer to comprehension and internal realization of music, or the sensation of an individual hearing or feeling sound when it is not physically present.[5] Musicians previously used terms such as aural perception or aural imagery to describe this concept, though aural imagery would imply a notational component while audiation does not necessarily do so.[6] Gordon suggests that "audiation is to music what thought is to language."[7] His research is based on similarities between how individuals learn a language and how they learn to make and understand music.[8] Gordon specifies that audiation potential is an element of music aptitude, arguing that to demonstrate music aptitude one must use audiation.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfège

In music, solfège (UK: /ˈsɒlfɛʒ/,[1] US: /sɒlˈfɛʒ/; French: [sɔlfɛʒ]) or solfeggio (/sɒlˈfɛdʒioʊ/; Italian: [solˈfeddʒo]), also called sol-fa, solfa, solfeo, among many names, is a music education method used to teach aural skills, pitch and sight-reading of Western music. Solfège is a form of solmization, though the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

Syllables are assigned to the notes of the scale and enable the musician to audiate, or mentally hear, the pitches of a piece of music being seen for the first time and then to sing them aloud. Through the Renaissance (and much later in some shapenote publications) various interlocking 4, 5 and 6-note systems were employed to cover the octave. The tonic sol-fa method popularized the seven syllables commonly used in English-speaking countries: do (or doh in tonic sol-fa),[2] re, mi, fa, so(l), la, and ti (or si), see below.

In eleventh-century Italy, the music theorist Guido of Arezzo invented a notational system that named the six notes of the hexachord after the first syllable of each line of the Latin hymn Ut queant laxis, the "Hymn to St. John the Baptist", yielding ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la.[7][8] Each successive line of this hymn begins on the next scale degree, so each note's name was the syllable sung at that pitch in this hymn.


Sheet music for Ut queant laxis

Ut queant laxīs resonāre fībrīs​

Mīra gestōrum famulī tuōrum,​

Solve pollūtī labiī reātum,​

Sancte Iōhannēs.​

The words were written by Paulus Diaconus in the 8th century. They translate as:

So that your servants may, with loosened voices,​

Resound the wonders of your deeds,​

Clean the guilt from our stained lips,​

O St. John.​

"Ut" was changed in the 1600s in Italy to the open syllable Do,[8] at the suggestion of the musicologist Giovanni Battista Doni (based on the first syllable of his surname), and Si (from the initials for "Sancte Iohannes") was added to complete the diatonic scale. In Anglophone countries, "si" was changed to "ti" by Sarah Glover in the nineteenth century so that every syllable might begin with a different letter.[9]"Ti" is used in tonic sol-fa (and in the famed American show tune "Do-Re-Mi").

An alternative theory argues that the solfège syllables (do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti) derive from the syllables of an Arabic solmization system درر مفصّلات Durar Mufaṣṣalāt ("Detailed Pearls") (dāl, rā', mīm, fā', ṣād, lām, tā'), mentioned in the works of Francisci a Mesgnien Meninski in 1680 and later discussed by Jean-Benjamin de La Borde in 1780.[10][11][12][13] However, there is no documentary evidence for this theory.[14]

 

[RoA]

I personally feel that the LS50 Meta is a better value than the LS50 WII. $2,000/pair cheaper, and I honestly don't see a real difference in the measurements. In this case, the passive version crossover seems sufficient to basically match the active crossover in the active version. Maybe the active version has better time domain performance?

That said, if one wants a nice external amp and doesn't already own one, that knocks the difference down to ~$1000 and removes the need for an AVR/Amp(since one can stream directly to the actives). Actually, I do see the value there. Lots of other good options at $5,000/pair or just above, though. The Mesanovic MTM10 is only $1000 more, with near 20Hz in room performance.

300+ Watts of optimized bi-amplification per speaker, tone controls, DSP, Wireless streaming, subwoofer integration etc ... me don't think so ... respectfully

As to the OP, you come out with some strange quotations. - If you want 'Euphonic', my B&W Formation Duo's do that better but accuracy without hardness or sterility is A Kef LS50 trait.

From a user.

Hope that helps

 

[mononoaware]

Lots of other good options at $5,000/pair or just above, though. The Mesanovic MTM10 is only $1000 more, with near 20Hz in room performance.

Yes quite a few models came to mind at the price range, which I have forgotten now specifically.
Also some models below budget came to mind as suitable contenders.

Since OP listens in a small-room, I was going to suggest Genelec 8341a as a starting point, and do some research from there.

Edit: just now discovered LS50 Meta (passive) being compared to 8341a.
So maybe they truly are considered contenders by some.

Edit 2: maybe throw a spanner in the mix and look at the Technics SB-C700 (passive coaxial). . .

 

[mel]

I lean towards the Genelec 8020D based purely on physical size. I just need bedroom speakers that are incrementally larger than my AudioEngine A3s. Space is the constraining factor. Any speakers smaller than the exterior size ( 10" ) of my subwoofers is under consideration.

• If I can prove precise speaker coloration on my A3s, as described in the previous post, I have no reservations.
• I placed various empty boxes in my bedroom.
  • A 7" cube seemed most proportional for the room size.
  • 7" seems incrementally large enough when placed next to my A3s

I guess the Navis ARB-51 needs a two to four foot offset from the rear wall. They seem oversized for my bedroom.

 

[mel]

300+ Watts of optimized bi-amplification per speaker, tone controls, DSP, Wireless streaming, subwoofer integration etc ... me don't think so ... respectfully

As to the OP, you come out with some strange quotations. - If you want 'Euphonic', my B&W Formation Duo's do that better but accuracy without hardness or sterility is A Kef LS50 trait.

From a user.

Hope that helps

Thanks. I will certainly research them. B&W has an excellent reputation. I think I have a technique to precisely color speakers using my RME DAC.

Space is the constraining factor. Any speakers smaller than the exterior size ( 10" ) of my subwoofers is under consideration. I simply do not know enough.

 

[mel]

Yes quite a few models came to mind at the price range, which I have forgotten now specifically.
Also some models below budget came to mind as suitable contenders.

Since OP listens in a small-room, I was going to suggest Genelec 8341a as a starting point, and do some research from there.

Edit: just now discovered LS50 Meta (passive) being compared to 8341a.
So maybe they truly are considered contenders by some.

Edit 2: maybe throw a spanner in the mix and look at the Technics SB-C700 (passive coaxial). . .

Can you recommend a smaller one?

• I placed various empty boxes in my bedroom.
  • A 7" cube seemed most proportional for the room size.
  • 7" seems incrementally large enough when placed next to my A3s
  • My 10" (exterior size) subwoofers seem too big.

 

[mel]

Yes quite a few models came to mind at the price range, which I have forgotten now specifically.
Also some models below budget came to mind as suitable contenders.

Since OP listens in a small-room, I was going to suggest Genelec 8341a as a starting point, and do some research from there.

Edit: just now discovered LS50 Meta (passive) being compared to 8341a.
So maybe they truly are considered contenders by some.

Edit 2: maybe throw a spanner in the mix and look at the Technics SB-C700 (passive coaxial). . .

The Mesanovic are impressive, but big:
Height: 16.75”

Width: 8.5”

Length: 17.75”

Weight: 55 lb

 

[mel]

Thanks. I will certainly research them. B&W has an excellent reputation. I think I have a technique to precisely color speakers using my RME DAC.

Space is the constraining factor. Any speakers smaller than the exterior size ( 10" ) of my subwoofers is under consideration. I simply do not know enough.

They are too big. My 10" subwoofers look big in my bedroom. Anything between 7 and 10", cubed works.

 

[mel]

300+ Watts of optimized bi-amplification per speaker, tone controls, DSP, Wireless streaming, subwoofer integration etc ... me don't think so ... respectfully

As to the OP, you come out with some strange quotations. - If you want 'Euphonic', my B&W Formation Duo's do that better but accuracy without hardness or sterility is A Kef LS50 trait.

From a user.

Hope that helps

I hope to define euphonic with precision (as a regular expression) that I can control from my RME DAC. Why is speaker coloration such a big mystery?


You probably only need to know one ancient chant: Ut queant laxis, the origin of the Solfège scale. This chant, in any of its numerous renditions, might suffice to understand crossover or speaker coloration: Play the chant.


Solfège (do, re, mi, fa, so(l), la, and ti (or si) may be a simple way to compare sonic qualities. The sound is encoded in the syllable, so the sound is unambiguous. Measuring or perceiving should provide consistent results. Two sides of the same coin.

In computer terms, Solfège is a "regular expression" or pattern that can be generated, given rules and syntax. I'm not a linguist or neurologist, but my guess is pseudo words that represent sounds are an expected and predictable outcome of neural networks.

Solfège syllables are all CVC pseudo words, as they start with a Consonant and end in a Vowel or Consonant. Eleven letters might be sufficient to create a minimal music alphabet for CVC pseudo words. But, without "w", would not represent many sounds of nature.

• Woofer - bass sounds.
  • An "_oofer", without "W".
  • Dogs would "_oof".
  • Cats would "meo_"
• Tweeter - treble sounds.
  • A "T_eeter", without "W".
  • Birds would "t_eet".

Other necessary letters:

• B - Babble, burble. sound of flowing water.
  • Boom
• C - Chirp like a bird
• D -
• P - Pitter patter sound of rain
• W - tweet, woof, meow
• Y - yodel
• Z - Buzz like a bee