WAJ on AUDIO S-V
PREREQUISITES for SONIC REALISM - Corroborated; Part 3 S-V
Rare instances of corroboration in the mainstream press regarding the most important factors for 'Sonic Realism'
by W.A.J.
Up to this point, I've been making some very controversial statements, allegations, and assertions, which contradict accepted beliefs, practices, and conventions, in most cases. If my assertions are correct, however, then it would mean that perhaps the majority of modern 'high-fidelity' speaker-systems sold to the unsuspecting and misled audiophile are really worthless, if High-Fidelity reproduction of music is the real goal. That's only one issue, of course, though it's also a central and very important one, with many sub-issues attached.
Nevertheless, whenever confronted with such controversial arguments, one cannot be faulted for seeking proof. "Where are the supporting arguments, from other independent sources?" That's a pertinent concern. Well, though the interests of many audio-scribes would deter them from being forthright on these issues, there are a few instances where some have hinted at aspects of the real truth regarding the general lack of realism in hifi speakers, and at the real causes of this lack of realism, in the main (i.e. lack of dynamism, and lack of lower-midrange body). In this piece, we propose to point you in the direction of some of these rare supporting arguments, from other sources.
If you haven't yet read the articles previous to this one, then let me encourage you do so. This is because the series, so far, is written like a book, with each part or 'chapter' flowing into the other. 'Audio Magazines' Sinister Practices...', for instance, highlights some of the nefarious tactics elements of the mainstream audio-press employ to mislead the consumer. It also alleges that, among other things, they're partly responsible for the deficiencies in the vast majority of speaker-systems today. And, Part 1; 'From HiFi to High-End...', for another example, highlights the deficiencies in these speaker-systems, and offers the solution by suggesting the most important factors for lifelike audio-reproduction; dynamics, lower-midrange body and detail-resolution. (The latter of which is already present in most good systems, albeit to a limited degree, typically, but needs not be stressed here - except to say that the typical system which lacks the ability for realistic response at the low-mids, will also lack detail in this region, obviously, and the same applies to dynamics). Aspects of all preceding articles (especially parts 1&2) are relevant to the points presented in this current piece.
PREREQUISITES for SONIC REALISM - Corroborated; Part 3 S-V
Rare instances of corroboration in the mainstream press regarding the most important factors for 'Sonic Realism'
by W.A.J.
Up to this point, I've been making some very controversial statements, allegations, and assertions, which contradict accepted beliefs, practices, and conventions, in most cases. If my assertions are correct, however, then it would mean that perhaps the majority of modern 'high-fidelity' speaker-systems sold to the unsuspecting and misled audiophile are really worthless, if High-Fidelity reproduction of music is the real goal. That's only one issue, of course, though it's also a central and very important one, with many sub-issues attached.
Nevertheless, whenever confronted with such controversial arguments, one cannot be faulted for seeking proof. "Where are the supporting arguments, from other independent sources?" That's a pertinent concern. Well, though the interests of many audio-scribes would deter them from being forthright on these issues, there are a few instances where some have hinted at aspects of the real truth regarding the general lack of realism in hifi speakers, and at the real causes of this lack of realism, in the main (i.e. lack of dynamism, and lack of lower-midrange body). In this piece, we propose to point you in the direction of some of these rare supporting arguments, from other sources.
If you haven't yet read the articles previous to this one, then let me encourage you do so. This is because the series, so far, is written like a book, with each part or 'chapter' flowing into the other. 'Audio Magazines' Sinister Practices...', for instance, highlights some of the nefarious tactics elements of the mainstream audio-press employ to mislead the consumer. It also alleges that, among other things, they're partly responsible for the deficiencies in the vast majority of speaker-systems today. And, Part 1; 'From HiFi to High-End...', for another example, highlights the deficiencies in these speaker-systems, and offers the solution by suggesting the most important factors for lifelike audio-reproduction; dynamics, lower-midrange body and detail-resolution. (The latter of which is already present in most good systems, albeit to a limited degree, typically, but needs not be stressed here - except to say that the typical system which lacks the ability for realistic response at the low-mids, will also lack detail in this region, obviously, and the same applies to dynamics). Aspects of all preceding articles (especially parts 1&2) are relevant to the points presented in this current piece.
Since writing those preceding articles, another piece has come to my attention. And since it makes me feel less like a lone wolf howling in the wilderness, I am compelled to highlight sections of it. The following is by Thomas W. Mallin of Stereo Times magazine. In italic below, I'm paraphrasing from his review of the $15k Legacy Whisper speaker system, dated 3rd April, 2000:
He asks that we: Understand first, that unlike most people these days he still uses the absolute sound of live unamplified acoustic instruments playing music as a standard against which to judge the sound of audio equipment. Also understand that tonal balance, dynamics, and the ability to play large orchestral works at subjectively realistic levels are quite important to him. While he fully admits to the joys of a visible auditory sound-stage populated by three-dimensional images, great imaging and sound-staging will not distract him from serious deficiencies in tonal balance, dynamic contrasts, and dynamic range.
When judged against this standard, to his ears, most serious audiophile speakers sound tonally a bit thin (meaning lacking tonal weight from the bass through lower midrange) and a bit bright (exaggerated upper mids through lower highs). Most such speakers are also unable to encompass the dynamics of live music at any frequency, much less with the effortlessness of the real thing. And especially in the bass, most such speakers just don’t move enough air to at all resemble the tremendous power and scale one hears from organ, bass drum, tympani, lower strings, and the lower brass in a hall.
This mirrors exactly my own experience with virtually ALL modern conventional high-end speakers I’ve encountered, and typified by my Spendor BC-1 and a pair of B&W's 802Ds, as I've previously outlined. He could almost have been describing the sound of those B&W’s I alluded to in part 2 of this series, even down to the prominent treble. The question is; Why haven’t more reviewers ‘recognized’ these major FUNDAMENTAL FAULTS in modern conventional speakers, and highlighted them for what they are, instead of misleading their readerships with raves about the stereo-imaging and detailed-resolution of the tonally & dynamically-flawed ‘musical notes’ these speakers produce?
Previously, even while writing the prior pieces, I’d questioned my own perceptions as very few reviewers seemed to even notice these faults – now I feel vindicated, somewhat.
He asks that we: Understand first, that unlike most people these days he still uses the absolute sound of live unamplified acoustic instruments playing music as a standard against which to judge the sound of audio equipment. Also understand that tonal balance, dynamics, and the ability to play large orchestral works at subjectively realistic levels are quite important to him. While he fully admits to the joys of a visible auditory sound-stage populated by three-dimensional images, great imaging and sound-staging will not distract him from serious deficiencies in tonal balance, dynamic contrasts, and dynamic range.
When judged against this standard, to his ears, most serious audiophile speakers sound tonally a bit thin (meaning lacking tonal weight from the bass through lower midrange) and a bit bright (exaggerated upper mids through lower highs). Most such speakers are also unable to encompass the dynamics of live music at any frequency, much less with the effortlessness of the real thing. And especially in the bass, most such speakers just don’t move enough air to at all resemble the tremendous power and scale one hears from organ, bass drum, tympani, lower strings, and the lower brass in a hall.
This mirrors exactly my own experience with virtually ALL modern conventional high-end speakers I’ve encountered, and typified by my Spendor BC-1 and a pair of B&W's 802Ds, as I've previously outlined. He could almost have been describing the sound of those B&W’s I alluded to in part 2 of this series, even down to the prominent treble. The question is; Why haven’t more reviewers ‘recognized’ these major FUNDAMENTAL FAULTS in modern conventional speakers, and highlighted them for what they are, instead of misleading their readerships with raves about the stereo-imaging and detailed-resolution of the tonally & dynamically-flawed ‘musical notes’ these speakers produce?
Previously, even while writing the prior pieces, I’d questioned my own perceptions as very few reviewers seemed to even notice these faults – now I feel vindicated, somewhat.
LOWER-MIDRANGE BODY: Further substantiating aspects of my own radical views is a review by the webzine, 'The International Audio Review' (IAR) of the Osborn Grand Monument speaker system. (OK so the IAR isn't really 'mainstream-press', it's one of the good-guys, but its views are relevant here nonetheless).
Though costing a 'mere' $20k, the IAR recognizes the Osborn as a 'statement ' speaker comparable to the likes of; the Sound Lab A1, Martin Logan's Statement, and Wilson's Grand Slamm, even surpassing some of these in aspects of its sonic realism.. One of these aspects, or, one of its most outstanding attributes, they say, is its ability to sound appropriately 'big' - as big as the music requires, even at moderate listening levels. Also, large-scale works sound large and commandingly impressive, just as the composer intended. This they attributed to the speaker's 'rich warmth' which allows musical performances to convey 'wonderfully' rich body, weight, and authoritative heft. Singers, they tell us, have real chests, not just vocal-chords, pianos have real sounding boards, not just hammers and strings, and cellos have large resonant cavities, not just strings and a bow. IAR believes rich warmth in speakers provides NATURAL MUSICALITY, and contributes to preventing a speaker from sounding lean, bright and analytical.
Sounds familiar? Though this account highlights the lean and bright characteristics of modern conventional speakers, it stops short of pointing the finger at said culprits, as in the previous account from StereoTimes. Nevertheless, the hints hit like a ton of bricks - it's that obvious. (Incidentally, my highlighting of that segment from I.A.R. does not necessarily mean that I'm endorsing this speaker-system for my readers to run out and buy it. Physics, and this system's small mid-woofer, suggest to me that it's unlikely to be capable of truly realistic low-mids performance - see Part 4, and beyond. But at least I'm willing to accept that its performance here is significantly better than that of the typical modern conventional speaker-system, as the review suggests. I, therefore, see this as an encouraging step in the right direction).
Though costing a 'mere' $20k, the IAR recognizes the Osborn as a 'statement ' speaker comparable to the likes of; the Sound Lab A1, Martin Logan's Statement, and Wilson's Grand Slamm, even surpassing some of these in aspects of its sonic realism.. One of these aspects, or, one of its most outstanding attributes, they say, is its ability to sound appropriately 'big' - as big as the music requires, even at moderate listening levels. Also, large-scale works sound large and commandingly impressive, just as the composer intended. This they attributed to the speaker's 'rich warmth' which allows musical performances to convey 'wonderfully' rich body, weight, and authoritative heft. Singers, they tell us, have real chests, not just vocal-chords, pianos have real sounding boards, not just hammers and strings, and cellos have large resonant cavities, not just strings and a bow. IAR believes rich warmth in speakers provides NATURAL MUSICALITY, and contributes to preventing a speaker from sounding lean, bright and analytical.
Sounds familiar? Though this account highlights the lean and bright characteristics of modern conventional speakers, it stops short of pointing the finger at said culprits, as in the previous account from StereoTimes. Nevertheless, the hints hit like a ton of bricks - it's that obvious. (Incidentally, my highlighting of that segment from I.A.R. does not necessarily mean that I'm endorsing this speaker-system for my readers to run out and buy it. Physics, and this system's small mid-woofer, suggest to me that it's unlikely to be capable of truly realistic low-mids performance - see Part 4, and beyond. But at least I'm willing to accept that its performance here is significantly better than that of the typical modern conventional speaker-system, as the review suggests. I, therefore, see this as an encouraging step in the right direction).
Coincidentally IAR, in this review, singles-out Henry Kloss as a designer who had always sought to ensure that his designs provide similarly rich warmth, and they attribute the 'musical success' of Kloss' KLH Model 6 and 8 to this very factor. It is indeed ironic that they should mention this because, for years, I'd sought out later models of KLH drivers for my own DIY system because of this very same elusive attribute. No other driver I encountered, at the time, could supply that 'rich warmth' (or 'lower-midrange body' as I prefer to call it) in the ideal proportions that these cheap KLH's can. Of course, there are others which are particularly proficient at this trait, but they are extremely rare.
DYNAMICS & Etc: The Absolute Sound magazine's (TAS') issue #162 carries a round-table discussion amongst its writers on the necessary requirements for 'Sonic Realism' which, they say, is regrettably absent from modern speakers. In one segment they suggest that bass and treble are deterrents to realism as they 'stick-out' and detract from the perception of realism. I reservedly agree with this view. Reservedly, because I also recognize the existence of treble excesses and a recessed midrange in modern speakers, and recognize that this will be emphasized when combined with the real major problem; the lack of lower-midrange body in today's speakers. This lower-mid deficiency will also cause realistically proportioned bass to 'stick out' in such speakers as there is no continuity between mid and bass since -yes - the lower-mids region is missing.
In actuality though, yes, treble does 'stick out'. But, apart from some in the upper-echelons of high-end (to which I believe TAS was referring) most speakers don't even have the (realistically proportioned) bass/deep-bass to 'stick out' very much. Realistic bass and realistically proportioned bass/deep-bass, in most modern speakers, have suffered the plight of the lower-midrange - they're all missing in action.
All are totally agreed on the next point, however, including yours truly. Robert Harley made the point that dynamic nuance is the thing that spooks you because that's what sounds real. Jonathan Valin offered that, to him, dynamics are 'the whole ball of wax' - that is in so far as the attainment of sonic realism is concerned. And in response to a previous string on the crucial necessity of midrange presence which horns excel at, Harry Pearson pointed out that horns are highly efficient devices, and that the more efficient the device gets, the better the macro-dynamics and the micro-dynamics.
Admirable! It warms the heart to see one of our major mainstream magazines grasping some of the roots of our problems - even if they did fail to properly identify the missing lower midrange element. In light of all this then, one can't help but to ponder at the rationale behind their continued raves about - let's say - not the least bit 'highly efficient devices', exhibiting pitiful levels of dynamism, with near non-existent 'midrange-presence', in addition to bass and (excessive) treble which.... 'stick out'. But then, that's another story.
A brief note, though, on the 'crucial' necessity of 'midrange presence', if realism is to be achieved, as TAS indicates. Again I agree. This strengthens a point I made, in part 1, about the overwhelming importance of the midrange in music; all of the midrange. As a reminder I'll reiterate my statement from that article; 90% of the sounds in nature and music, in my estimation, are in the midrange. Therefore the accurate reproduction of all the midrange (including the missing lower-midrange) is absolutely critical for the accurate reproduction of the sounds of music.
However, of all the above, my favorite is the StereoTimes reviewer. More so than the others, all his views on the subject coincide exactly with my own. He even likes my second favorite speaker of all time (the Klipschorn) for the same reasons, and shuns it for the same faults I found - it's uncanny. He actually bought the 95db/1w/1m efficient Legacy Whisper since, tonally and dynamically, it fit his criteria for realistic reproduction – congrats to him on an apparently worthy choice.
Here, again, I’ll paraphrase his comments regarding the Whispers' dynamic capability: Maybe there are speakers out there which give a greater impression, top to bottom, of the seemingly limitless dynamic range of live music, but there are very few. The classic Klipschorns are certainly in the same league, but due to frequency response peaks in the upper ranges, don’t sound as relaxed as the Whispers. Especially in the midrange, where one would expect most speakers to have adequate dynamic range, the Whispers are far superior to anything else he’s heard. And he also tells us: As another reviewer said, you really don’t realize how much other speakers are compressing midrange music until you hear that music played through the Whispers.
Conclusion: I reiterate; everything this reviewer has said corroborates the points I had previously made in parts 1&2 of this series. Pretty much the same applies to IAR and, surprisingly, TAS. It is of paramount importance that it be understood, though, that if the theories expounded here at W.A.J. on Audio S-V are valid (as corroborated by those others) then it means that, perhaps, 95% of the speakers some of these mags continue to encourage consumers to buy are really worthless, if sonic realism is the goal we seek. Why, then, do these mags continue to foist upon us components which lack the major prerequisites for achieving it? "Audio Magazines’ Sinister Practices” (a previous article) has already addressed that issue: What do you think?
Nevertheless we're apparently all agreed, more or less, on the major points of both my articles, so far, on the subject: Provided all other performance areas are decent, correct-tonality (necessarily including lower-midrange body) and supreme dynamic-capability, are THE most important factors for realistic, LIFELIKE, audio reproduction. Detail-resolution, the third factor, plays a supporting-role, in this scenario
Part 4
DYNAMICS & Etc: The Absolute Sound magazine's (TAS') issue #162 carries a round-table discussion amongst its writers on the necessary requirements for 'Sonic Realism' which, they say, is regrettably absent from modern speakers. In one segment they suggest that bass and treble are deterrents to realism as they 'stick-out' and detract from the perception of realism. I reservedly agree with this view. Reservedly, because I also recognize the existence of treble excesses and a recessed midrange in modern speakers, and recognize that this will be emphasized when combined with the real major problem; the lack of lower-midrange body in today's speakers. This lower-mid deficiency will also cause realistically proportioned bass to 'stick out' in such speakers as there is no continuity between mid and bass since -yes - the lower-mids region is missing.
In actuality though, yes, treble does 'stick out'. But, apart from some in the upper-echelons of high-end (to which I believe TAS was referring) most speakers don't even have the (realistically proportioned) bass/deep-bass to 'stick out' very much. Realistic bass and realistically proportioned bass/deep-bass, in most modern speakers, have suffered the plight of the lower-midrange - they're all missing in action.
All are totally agreed on the next point, however, including yours truly. Robert Harley made the point that dynamic nuance is the thing that spooks you because that's what sounds real. Jonathan Valin offered that, to him, dynamics are 'the whole ball of wax' - that is in so far as the attainment of sonic realism is concerned. And in response to a previous string on the crucial necessity of midrange presence which horns excel at, Harry Pearson pointed out that horns are highly efficient devices, and that the more efficient the device gets, the better the macro-dynamics and the micro-dynamics.
Admirable! It warms the heart to see one of our major mainstream magazines grasping some of the roots of our problems - even if they did fail to properly identify the missing lower midrange element. In light of all this then, one can't help but to ponder at the rationale behind their continued raves about - let's say - not the least bit 'highly efficient devices', exhibiting pitiful levels of dynamism, with near non-existent 'midrange-presence', in addition to bass and (excessive) treble which.... 'stick out'. But then, that's another story.
A brief note, though, on the 'crucial' necessity of 'midrange presence', if realism is to be achieved, as TAS indicates. Again I agree. This strengthens a point I made, in part 1, about the overwhelming importance of the midrange in music; all of the midrange. As a reminder I'll reiterate my statement from that article; 90% of the sounds in nature and music, in my estimation, are in the midrange. Therefore the accurate reproduction of all the midrange (including the missing lower-midrange) is absolutely critical for the accurate reproduction of the sounds of music.
However, of all the above, my favorite is the StereoTimes reviewer. More so than the others, all his views on the subject coincide exactly with my own. He even likes my second favorite speaker of all time (the Klipschorn) for the same reasons, and shuns it for the same faults I found - it's uncanny. He actually bought the 95db/1w/1m efficient Legacy Whisper since, tonally and dynamically, it fit his criteria for realistic reproduction – congrats to him on an apparently worthy choice.
Here, again, I’ll paraphrase his comments regarding the Whispers' dynamic capability: Maybe there are speakers out there which give a greater impression, top to bottom, of the seemingly limitless dynamic range of live music, but there are very few. The classic Klipschorns are certainly in the same league, but due to frequency response peaks in the upper ranges, don’t sound as relaxed as the Whispers. Especially in the midrange, where one would expect most speakers to have adequate dynamic range, the Whispers are far superior to anything else he’s heard. And he also tells us: As another reviewer said, you really don’t realize how much other speakers are compressing midrange music until you hear that music played through the Whispers.
Conclusion: I reiterate; everything this reviewer has said corroborates the points I had previously made in parts 1&2 of this series. Pretty much the same applies to IAR and, surprisingly, TAS. It is of paramount importance that it be understood, though, that if the theories expounded here at W.A.J. on Audio S-V are valid (as corroborated by those others) then it means that, perhaps, 95% of the speakers some of these mags continue to encourage consumers to buy are really worthless, if sonic realism is the goal we seek. Why, then, do these mags continue to foist upon us components which lack the major prerequisites for achieving it? "Audio Magazines’ Sinister Practices” (a previous article) has already addressed that issue: What do you think?
Nevertheless we're apparently all agreed, more or less, on the major points of both my articles, so far, on the subject: Provided all other performance areas are decent, correct-tonality (necessarily including lower-midrange body) and supreme dynamic-capability, are THE most important factors for realistic, LIFELIKE, audio reproduction. Detail-resolution, the third factor, plays a supporting-role, in this scenario
Part 4
Copyright 2010