How to "listen"?

[Mallette]

I also have a friend who put's his hands over his mouth and honks like a goose every time he see's me because he likes to tease me about my horns and that's ok too.

Just sympathize with him about the apparent hearing handicap he has.

Dave

[Deang]

For sale: MCM 5-way setup with TAD drivers, active crossover, McIntosh amps, 684 subs....CAUTION.....only plays loud....bigger, but not better

WTB: Heresys with DeanG PIO passive networks. Original alnico drivers and cast iron exponential horns a must.

WTB: Used Sonic Impact chip amp and power cube.

Heresys and a chip amp with a good player can sound really good, especially the way I listen - late at night, exhausted and brain dead.

Titanium mid-drivers grate on my nerves after a bit. I'd rather listen to K-55s with a set of Dave's horns. The scale is smaller, but I wouldn't get a headache.

I enjoyed Claude's post on how to listen. Nicely done.

I listen for things that don't belong - I'm sensitive to things like hash and any kind of grainy quality. I think sound should have an intoxicating quality to it. I rediscovered this when I went back to quasi - near field listening and good headphones.

[Gilbert]

No reason to be ashamed. Some people just get it and others do not. You are just in the later category.

It comes very naturally to me. Been doing it all my life. When I was a kid it was really loud and I would run around the room and play air guitar to Led Zeppelin.

Then later I got some JBL's and would sit on the couch and bob my head up and down, mullet in full swing.

Now I am middle aged and kind of tap my feet a little. Maybe if they legalize pot I will go back to the air guitar again.

Post a short video of you listening and we'll all give you some pointers.

Here are some examples:

This guy is really good at listening:

But we need to start you out slowly. Maybe follow this example:

Wow, I've never seen it summed up so perfectly......

[BlackGTS]

I would dial in what sounds best to you. Tweak it. Try your absolute favorite song on a lot of different variations. If you know a certain song, can be anything, use it but you must know EVERY SINGLE SOUND very well. I have a song that I use whenever I change anything. I close my eyes and visualize each sound "

Best of luck,

Ron

I can not count the times I've thought i knew a song forward and back only to implement some new piece of gear and hear nuance that was obscured. There is also a downside to using music you consider your favorite, Once you begin to use something as reference material and critically listen you will always use it as such and will likely no longer love it

I have several songs I wish I had not used for critical listening,

I learned how to guage my systems / gear by visiting people with much better hearing than me, listening to there systems and picking there brains (we became friends thru music, we remain friends )

A new Epiphany for me is Headphones IE.... the fore mentioned friends above would talk about nuances in music i could never hear on an open air speaker setup, I am now hearing those nuances with headphones (this may prove an asset or a problem for me if i set up another open air system )

I totally understand your point and I don't use "my" song very often as a reference, just when I listen to a change in equipment or on another system (Youthman indulged me a listen on his rig.)

This particular song turns 35 this year so it has been with me for a LONG time now. I know it about as well as any other song and it has shown deficiencies in many setups that I have tried. I almost immediately know what is lacking in the EQ, speaker position, tone, etc when I give it a listen. Of course I adjust to what MY ears think is the best sound. Probably would be different for others.

BTW, the BEST that I have ever heard so far with this song was Youth's system in his HT.

Ron

[Gilbert]

Sigh. Never mind.

Just pic a few of your favorite tunes, and the rest will come naturally.

Some of my all time favorite songs for demo'ing are "Woman In Chains", by Tears 4 Fears, and another would be "Space Intro" to Steve Miller's "Fly Like An Eagle".

If I have the whole house to myself, I love the Pink Floyd LP, "The Final Cut". Definitely one of my all time favorites, but mood is everything.

[Deang]

Hi Mark, primarily responding to Mark1101's post. Most of my listening is still done with Beyerdynamic t5p and Etymotic er4p IEMs. My main rig consists of some reverse engineered Radian stage monitors - modest sized bass reflex cabinets loaded with 8" coaxials. The HF driver portion is a 1" Radian 475bp compression driver with an aluminum diaphragm. Very little bass, they only go down to 60Hz. The design is optimized for voice - I supplement them with acoustic suspension subs.

I just took delivery of an interesting single ended pentode design by Justin of www.ampsandsound.com (on loan). I'm not a bass freak, and I can probably get 50Hz with corners - the shift in signature compared to what I'm used to should be fun to experience.

[ClaudeJ1]

As far as listening skills go, I have no idea where I land but I'm too old to change where I'm at, nor do I care to ! I enjoy what I hear and that's good enough for me.

I must admit that I do get a sense of pride when people tell me that's the best system they've ever heard but I also have a friend who put's his hands over his mouth and honks like a goose every time he see's me because he likes to tease me about my horns and that's ok too.

I have 3 fairly different systems and I like them all! My MCM's are my favorite by far but so is primerib. I could eat it a lot but not every day, sometimes a hamburger sounds good (KG 5.5's) .I know they aren't as good but sometimes they just hit the spot.

But if I had to pick one I'd go big!

So how does that sub sound with your big stuff? Is there a big K-402 in your future?

Edited January 17, 2014 by ClaudeJ1

[muel]

The Beyerdynamic t5p are very nice headphones and I think give you a good reference for balanced sound from top to bottom without any boom or nulls or other room effects. As nice as they are the sound stage is still headphones direct into my ears and I can't quite get past that. My goal is to get my room to sound more like the Beyerdynamics but with a great sound stage.

Hi Mark, primarily responding to Mark1101's post. Most of my listening is still done with Beyerdynamic t5p and Etymotic er4p IEMs. My main rig consists of some reverse engineered Radian stage monitors - modest sized bass reflex cabinets loaded with 8" coaxials. The HF driver portion is a 1" Radian 475bp compression driver with an aluminum diaphragm. Very little bass, they only go down to 60Hz. The design is optimized for voice - I supplement them with acoustic suspension subs.

I just took delivery of an interesting single ended pentode design by Justin of www.ampsandsound.com (on loan). I'm not a bass freak, and I can probably get 50Hz with corners - the shift in signature compared to what I'm used to should be fun to experience.

[Gnote]

But if I had to pick one I'd go big!

So how does that sub sound with your big stuff? Is there a big K-402 in your future?

Dam you and the K-402's! those are definitely in my future !

Sub is in place but no amp yet. Should have one this weekend but it's killing me to wait.

Your setup was amazing no matter how your listening skills are ! LOL

Edited January 17, 2014 by Gnote

[Deang]

lol, I thought we decided that there isn't any such thing as "accurate" sound? It just seems like such a misnomer to me.

[Mallette]

I know the reference, Dean. OTOH, we have a lot of new members who haven't been down that road. For them, I'll open a large size, fresh, can of worms.

First, various dictionaries differ in whether "accurate" is like "clear." That is, no degrees. However, some add to "an agreed upon" degree or similar. So, let's just use the etymology of the word as a common basis...

"late 16th century: from Latin accuratus 'done with care', past participle of accurare, from ad- 'toward' + cura 'care'."

So, if we can suggest that "accurate" in a system is one that reproduces source material where any differences heard are those added, altered, or not reproduced by the system we leave open the possibility of an "accurate" system.

In approaching recording, that is the rubric I use. I've a pretty good memory for acoustic space/time events, especially when they are quite fresh. When I make a recording, I get back to my system post haste. When I play it back, I first listen for my system...any issue. Then I mentally compare what I am hearing to the experience at the position of the microphones in the event itself. To the extent they jive, I consider the recording "accurate." Same for the system. To the extent I can play back one of my on recordings that I've subjected to the first test on someone else's system, I can form a better opinion of whether it is "accurate" or not.

It's much harder with material one did not record unless one is familiar with the venue or source. Some things, like a Steinway grand piano or an Amati violin, have characteristic signatures that help...though, of course, you still have to account for the space where they are being played.

I would submit that accuracy CAN be objective, if several pairs of ears are using the same standard to judge.

Dave

[Deang]

I think you're confusing the right kind of accurate with the other kind of accurate - mine can give you goose-bumps. Hey, I forgot about the goose-bump rule.

[Mallette]

It goes back as far as I can remember being in the audio hobby. In my early era, Edgar Villchur put on a big demonstration of showing the AR-3 was the most accurate speaker because people in an auditorium couldn't tell when his speakers started and the chamber orchestra stopped. It was nice showmanship, and for anyone who had a living room the size of an auditorium (including stage) it was really meaningful.

AAMOF, this one was done with acoustic phonographs with identical results. Key is choosing the right AUDITORIUM, then the instruments to be used. The right venue coupled with the right instruments can create a situation that will make it hard to tell almost anything.

A lot of companies adopted the "accurate sound" theme. Usually based on some kind of wave measurements and such. It

Fully agree here with the whole paragraph. Only the ears count.

Dave

[Mallette]

I think you're confusing the right kind of accurate with the other kind of accurate - mine can give you goose-bumps.

BUT...if your system give you goose bumps, and hearing the original event didn't, it isn't accurate.

Maybe it's better than "accurate." Like Charlie Tuna, some may want a system with good taste, while another may prefer one that tastes good.

Dave

[Deang]

I had some AR-3s - they were my first real set of loudspeakers. When I got my first job, I bought my first pair of Advents. After about a year I was driving them with G.A.S. My buddy/room-mate had DQ-10s driven with a Dynaco PAT-5 and 400 power amp. I coveted his DQs and he hated me for the sound I was getting out of my Largers. One day we were bored and out of weed, and we decided to put my G.A.S. stuff on the DQs. He hated me even more, and I started saving for DQs. About the time I was getting ready to pull the trigger on the DQs, I heard some AR-11s. I bought them after a 20 minute audition. I mean, DQs were still in the house, right? I had the 11s in the same room with my $179.00 (each) Original Advents. I really liked the 11s, but no one, and I mean no one - liked them anywhere near as much as the Advents. Instead of sticking to my guns and insisting that the ARs were vastly superior in every way - I wussed out and said I bought them because I mainly needed a good set of crank it up speakers (something they did really well, and everyone agreed). I actually ended up selling them because no one wanted to listen to them, and I'm not kidding. Keep in mind that this was back in the day when people came over just to hang out, party, and listen. The AR11 was touted by many reviewers at the time as being one of the most "accurate" loudspeakers ever designed - but it was DQs during the day and the Advents at night. A/D/S finally made it into the place, and the Advents got parked. Everyone loved the sound of those things. "Accurate"?

The people that came over had serious money tied up into their systems. Most were friends of my best friend's older brother who would come over to see if we were gaining on them. These people were brutal. No one talked about accuracy, they talked about mojo. It either sounded "great", "okay", or "like crap". And yes, Klipschorns were "ear bleeders" - but we only ever heard them in a store demoed by salesmen using 200wpc of Crown, showing how the bass could make your bell bottoms flap (while we stood with our fingers plugged into our ears).

I think we were on to something back then. We weren't chasing some abstract concept, or all that interested in being blown out of a room. It was about whether or not a system could draw you into the music and make you forget about the rod you just threw, or the chick that just dumped you, or any multitude of annoying things. Music was medicine, and if the sound didn't make you feel better - the system failed in its duty.

I think "accuracy" started making big strides about the time they took away our bean bag chairs.

Edited January 17, 2014 by DeanG

[seti]

What I found over the years is that when it comes to Klipsch bigger is better. No Khorn or lascala ever competed with the sound qualities of a properly implemented MCM setup if you get what I'm saying. If you want more true to life "live" sound.......go bigger. Go as big as you can.

I may be late to the thread but I agree 10000%.

As Roy said You can't fight physics.

Over the last couple years I've had the opportunity to listen to several large fully horn loaded systems and not just Klipsch. When you listen to the Klipsch heritage line as you go up in size they do sound better. Why stop at the Klipschorn or Jubilee? If you have the space I say go for it. I think the bigger the system the better the low level listening. The system I heard based around a 15ft straight bass horn was my favorite and the Goto drivers didn't sound too bad either.

Is it a bit crazy to stuff your house with ginormous bass horns?

Yes.

Do they sound amazing?

Yes.

Enjoy The Koolaid.

Edited January 18, 2014 by seti

[seti]

Was searching large bass horns and found this one?

[BlackGTS]

The people that came over had serious money tied up into their systems. Most were friends of my best friend's older brother who would come over to see if we were gaining on them. These people were brutal. No one talked about accuracy, they talked about mojo. It either sounded "great", "okay", or "like crap". And yes, Klipschorns were "ear bleeders" - but we only ever heard them in a store demoed by salesmen using 200wpc of Crown, showing how the bass could make your bell bottoms flap (while we stood with our fingers plugged into our ears).

That dittos my experience of the 1970s. We mocked companies using the "accuracy" claim as utter nonsense. Of particular (and well deserved ridicule) was Crown, who made the universally most wretched, unlistenable crap anyone had ever heard. You called it mojo, we called it "musicality". Nothing mattered except that in a quiet room, you could close your eyes and maybe, just maybe be fooled for a brief time that it really was a musical performance. Gordon Holt was setting the pace in understanding the difference between junk that measured well (Julian Hirsh-ville) and stuff that sounded, well, "musical."

Does anyone here remember the "sonic holography" that Carver pushed back in the 80's? I still have one of their sonic holography generators in the garage somewhere. When set up PERFECTLY, it was impressive but if you moved your head a foot in either direction you lost the effect.

Ron

[Gnote]

Is it a bit crazy to stuff your house with ginormous bass horns? Yes. Do they sound amazing? Yes. Enjoy The Koolaid.

I am becoming addicted to the Koolaid

[Chris A]

What I found over the years is that when it comes to Klipsch bigger is better. No Khorn or lascala ever competed with the sound qualities of a properly implemented MCM setup if you get what I'm saying. If you want more true to life "live" sound.......go bigger. Go as big as you can.

I may be late to the thread but I agree 10000%.

As Roy said You can't fight physics.

When I was very young, I spent a lot of time around pipe organs - walking around the pipes as they were being played by my mother. She was an organ performance major and church organist. From a child's perspective, I studied the pipes' size and relative loudness/naturalness of sound - literally living in the sound and the physical vibrations induced by the different pipe ranks, even placing my hand on them as they were being played (but don't tell anyone...).

Back at home, I asked my father, an EE professor/aerospace engineer and our home hi-fi architect, how our then coaxial acoustic suspension loudspeakers tried to convey the same music but were not able to, quickly running out of headroom and sounding really not good when turned up at all. I wondered how something so small was expected to have the same ability to move air without modulating its upper frequencies at the same time, thus producing poor sound...yes, I was in grade school when I had these questions in my mind...

I still have these thoughts: modulation distortion, FM and AM types, still dominate in loudspeakers and how poorly all direct radiator speakers sound, especially woofers, even at low SPL. The bigger the radiating surface, without mass effects predominating - as in horn designs, the more natural the sound and the louder that they play without that characteristic distortion that I hear in all other loudspeakers trying to reproduce the real thing.

In all my readings on this subject, I still haven't changed any of these observations and questions. I continued my music education and instrument playing in orchestras and various wind ensembles, relishing the sound that I heard while seated in these groups and wondering if I could recreate some of those experiences at home.

When I play two channel then switch to 6 channel mode, the sound becomes much more natural and effortless - up to levels that are closer to live concert levels for these acoustic ensembles. I can feel those experiences again--at least in part.

Bigger is better, perhaps because of dramatically lower modulation distortion and reduced driver moving mass effects, including vanishing/inaudible driver compression effects.

A link to an excellent article that discusses this little-understood subject of loudspeaker modulation distortion:

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1104red/index.html

Chris

Edited January 18, 2014 by Cask05