What it's getting right are the dynamics, something that many systems fail at - hence the strong echo in the listening space, that a.wayne complains of - but the vocals still have a closed in quality to some degree, a bit more to be done ...
Sometimes i see stars, but only if i press heavy.....
Sorry, that may have went too far for some.
Never heard a tone in my scull though.
Ringing in my ears, yes.
Sorry, that may have went too far for some.
Never heard a tone in my scull though.
Ringing in my ears, yes.
Intense musical tones do have that quality, of feeling as if they're penetrating your very being, that's the signature of live sounds. Most audio systems end up being cajoled into sounding "nice", a well-behaved little "performing bear", over there, that doesn't overtly threaten your listening space - all very nice if that's what you're after, but IME that sort will never replicate realistic playback - a good system should be capable of intensely intimidating you with sound ... because that's how the real world is ...
I guess we all have our own way of describing intense sound - if someone blew a real whistle very close to your ears would it be a detached, low-key experience - or would you describe in some other way ...?
I just wrote a symphony with whisles blown in my ear.
That is more intense then Cage or Ligeti.
That is more intense then Cage or Ligeti.
The other day i was at a concert.
Al Di Meola life.
The sound was good but my HiFi sounds better.
Was many times in the Musikverein Vienna.
Maybe not in the best seat.
Again i hear more details in my HiFi.
The coffing and rustling from the crowd bothers me.
Al Di Meola life.
The sound was good but my HiFi sounds better.
Was many times in the Musikverein Vienna.
Maybe not in the best seat.
Again i hear more details in my HiFi.
The coffing and rustling from the crowd bothers me.
Yes, recordings will frequently be better than live, because the everything is optimised at the time of recording for the best possible sound - get rid of the audience for one! And, dump the usual fairly crappy PA system - though, I have heard one or two professional sound systems that were so far in front of "high end" audio ...
Yes, it is the dynamics that still are lacking in reproduced sound.
On the other hand our HiFi is not in a big hall.
On the other hand our HiFi is not in a big hall.
And i know that there is much more on the recordings then we think.
I fried of mine played me his Stax headphones with a much improved amplifier he designed.
That was quite educating.
I fried of mine played me his Stax headphones with a much improved amplifier he designed.
That was quite educating.
To me, it's not relevant that our listening space is typically not large - the capability always has to be there to go loud, even if it seems it is unnecessary; because in fact it is needed! The analogy would be a car with a very strong engine - why do you need that? You will never want to drive at 150mph!!? - but I will need, on a regular basis, to overtake other vehicles efficiently and safely - that's the point of the strong engine ...
That's exactly what I'm always chasing, that the detail and the quality you heard on the Stax comes over, perfectly formed, via the speakers ...
Yes, nearfield is one way to get it; but I have found that if the system is sufficiently competent, and capable, then the same can still be experienced well beyond that listening range - there's a smooth continuum in the subjectively perceived sound, almost without limit, in terms of distance from the drivers.
However, and of course, the demands on the competence of the playback chain dramatically escalate, the further one pushes this - most systems run out of "puff" very quickly, and the illusion fails ...
However, and of course, the demands on the competence of the playback chain dramatically escalate, the further one pushes this - most systems run out of "puff" very quickly, and the illusion fails ...
Would any of you place Brian Eno's "Another Green World" (UK Island pressing) on that list or is it not sonic-ally up to par?
It is the best sounding pop-rock recording I have yet to hear.
This is one of the reasons I prefer OB speakers, they get much closer to the sound disconnecting from the drivers, sooner, with less expense and compromise. Sometimes I have heard this with garbage drivers whilst doing proof of concept and my repro chain is anything but high end.
Agreed but I think that may be due to the source from 1969 and a slight harmonic congestion to the vocals. May be the mic choice.
This is one of the "miracles" that can happen, 🙂 - it's a good party trick, 😀, and serves to demonstrate what is crucial, and what is of lesser importance ...
Reminds me of the demo I heard of the Eidetic amplifier, from Greg Ball, 20 years ago - they had it running through rough as guts looking, anonymous bookshelf speakers, which looked like they had been through the wars - scratched, discoloured, you name it -- but, the best sound I'd heard for a decade from an off the shelf, standard amp!
Guess they were trying to make a point ... 😀
Guess they were trying to make a point ... 😀
Joachim. How did your OB speakers go ? Mine with Eminence 12 Lta seemed to fly from the first moment. I used a polystyrene baffle 50 mm thick 1220 x 610. It would need thought to make it practical. I discovered a PA unit like this needs high amplifier damping factor in the mid band. This puts valve amps in doubt. When correctly driven the wizzer cone puts to shame many expensive mid-ranges. I would argue that fatigue is lower than many stand alone mid-ranges. This is because a mechanical crossover is less complex when it works OK? Sure they beam. Not as badly as the Moggies. I needed + 16 dB at 50 Hz EQ. They seemed happy to take it. With+ 6 dB at 15 kHz they even seemed no worse than Quad ELS 57 for HF. I have some HiVi tweeters to try with them.
About the Magggies and emerging from darkness. That is coupled with the ability to be ordinary. The Quads can not do that . Quads need serious signal sources. Maggies also can pretend to be rock speakers. I was playing lots of 1970's Prog Rock this week like ELP and Deep Purple and Early Floyd. They never failed to enjoy themselves. The Decca Journey into Stereo had surprising bass through them, the steam locomotive + station a symphony of noises. Then there are to excepted qualities of space and depth. The modern ones sound a bit thinner to me. One of Blumleins 1933 stereo 78 records was of nearby Hayes station. Ironically I went to Hayes to buy my fist big piece of hi fi when 14. Also Jordan Watts speakers were in Silverdale Road , the guy who taught me Buddhism worked there.
Lastor. Mangneplanar SMGa would seem to be ideal for you. They are considerably better than my Stax Ear-speakers. That is we need that space to hear perspectives. I sit about 2 metres away from the panels so not unlike Joachim in near filed. Head phones are direct coupled devices at best. That is very unlike speakers. I tried a blending circuit for them. It was worse. If CD had both bin-aural and standard stereo as proper recorded sound it would have anticipated the future. Whilst bin-aural is a poor substitute for speaker stereo it is at least attempt to put it right. I used to be subdued by headphones way of separating sounds. Somehow that switch in my head doesn't work now. The very cheap Sony earbugs I bought recently are better than the Stax to me. The Stax just sound odd. Like a yellow coulour cast over the sound. Very odd. The Universe is said to be magnolia from space if at the edge of it. The blue we see is the atmosphere of Earth as a filter. I really don't know. The sound of Stax is the colour of the Universe ?
About the Magggies and emerging from darkness. That is coupled with the ability to be ordinary. The Quads can not do that . Quads need serious signal sources. Maggies also can pretend to be rock speakers. I was playing lots of 1970's Prog Rock this week like ELP and Deep Purple and Early Floyd. They never failed to enjoy themselves. The Decca Journey into Stereo had surprising bass through them, the steam locomotive + station a symphony of noises. Then there are to excepted qualities of space and depth. The modern ones sound a bit thinner to me. One of Blumleins 1933 stereo 78 records was of nearby Hayes station. Ironically I went to Hayes to buy my fist big piece of hi fi when 14. Also Jordan Watts speakers were in Silverdale Road , the guy who taught me Buddhism worked there.
Lastor. Mangneplanar SMGa would seem to be ideal for you. They are considerably better than my Stax Ear-speakers. That is we need that space to hear perspectives. I sit about 2 metres away from the panels so not unlike Joachim in near filed. Head phones are direct coupled devices at best. That is very unlike speakers. I tried a blending circuit for them. It was worse. If CD had both bin-aural and standard stereo as proper recorded sound it would have anticipated the future. Whilst bin-aural is a poor substitute for speaker stereo it is at least attempt to put it right. I used to be subdued by headphones way of separating sounds. Somehow that switch in my head doesn't work now. The very cheap Sony earbugs I bought recently are better than the Stax to me. The Stax just sound odd. Like a yellow coulour cast over the sound. Very odd. The Universe is said to be magnolia from space if at the edge of it. The blue we see is the atmosphere of Earth as a filter. I really don't know. The sound of Stax is the colour of the Universe ?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.