Interesting article on the Dead's "Wall of Sound"....

[garyrc]

8 hours ago, Chris A said:

In my prior profession, the word gestalt is more or less synonymous with "subject-specific worldview"--which was my intent above.

 

"Subject-specific" meaning specific to the individual person (or group), or the topic, field of inquiry, etc., or bias?  I can see that the core staff at Stereophile would have shared beliefs, biases, etc. as a group that pretty much automatically click in, as in the comment of one of them (in the '90s???) upon visiting a musician's home, and seeing Klipsch speakers, "Why don't you have audiophile speakers?"  It must have annoyed them when Sam Tellig gave the La Scala II a fairly glowing review, albeit with some mysterious comments like, "over-ripe in the bass."  http://www.soundhifi.com/klipsch/sam.htm

 

The following is strictly IMO:

 

Gestalt is one of those words.

 

Like Paradigm, factoid, and schizophrenia, it acquired different shades of meaning (understandably quasi-related) over time and in different disciplines, to say nothing of pop articles.

 

The word [in German] means "shape" or "form."  Humans automatically organize elements into forms, or wholes, but not necessarily the same forms or wholes. 

 

Some of the most famous examples are perceptual as in the following picture:

Forms click in, automatically, but it makes a difference whether the individual is

told a) nothing b) the background is black c) the background is white.

 

What exactly Kohler meant by "The whole is different from the sum of its parts" is sometimes debated.  Maybe he shouldn't have used "sum of" and said "the whole is not identical with the parts, and the same parts can be used to form different wholes," as in the picture above, or in that different cultures "see" different constellations in the same areas of the sky.

 

A common example is "if all the parts of a car are laid out on the floor of a garage, they are not a car.  Only when they are assembled, do they become a car."

 

Now, Gestalt Psychotherapy seems like a whole (pardon) different animal, but if you read Paul Goodman's lengthy and theoretical section of Gestalt Therapy by Perls, Goodman, and Hefferline, there are hints as to why they named it that.

 

J. Gordon Holt:  "... so-called high-end audio is so far out of the musical mainstream that professional musicians cannot recognize anything familiar in the reproductions of their own instruments ... musicians who listen to records are increasingly (according to our mail) choosing Klipschorns over the products of "high-end" speaker manufacturers.  It is because their priorities in sound reproduction aren't as fouled-up as ours ... They are not into any single aspect of sound reproduction; they want something to trigger their musical gestalt."

 

That was my exact experience when I AB'd (I know, I know) a wall of speakers.  Some speakers were 'sweet," some got the cello sound just right (Bozak), some veiled the sound, thereby never giving offense, but whenever we came back to the Klipschorns, I thought, "Now, that sounds like an orchestra!"  I submit my musical gestalt was triggered,  the orchestra as a whole, in all of its complexity and unity and detail and "air" was there and reminded me of all the orchestral concerts I've been to, and the 7 or so (lost count) orchestras/bands I've played in (if you count school).

 

[dbomberger]

On 7/16/2018 at 7:54 AM, Westcoastdrums said:

That is insane.   If you heard it once you would more than likely never hear the same again. 

I did hear it on a couple of occasions-it was as amazing to see as it was to hear.  I remember seeing them working on it right up to the beginning of the concert. The Dead always were (and still are IMHO ahead of the curve when it comes to presenting great sound to an audience. 

[MEH Synergy]

"I did hear it on a couple of occasions-it was as amazing to see as it was to hear." 

 

Please do elaborate on the sound from what you remember.  I'm sure others are curious as well. 

[Chris A]

2 hours ago, garyrc said:

"Subject-specific" meaning specific to the individual person (or group), or the topic, field of inquiry, etc., or bias?

More "the topic".  The gestalt itself describes biases and viewpoints. Those in turn can be attached to groups or individuals.  Users, developers, reviewers, acquisition decisionmakers, etc., each have their own unique collections of viewpoints and biases. 

 

2 hours ago, garyrc said:

J. Gordon Holt:  "... so-called high-end audio is so far out of the musical mainstream that professional musicians cannot recognize anything familiar in the reproductions of their own instruments ... musicians who listen to records are increasingly (according to our mail) choosing Klipschorns over the products of "high-end" speaker manufacturers.  It is because their priorities in sound reproduction aren't as fouled-up as ours ... They are not into any single aspect of sound reproduction; they want something to trigger their musical gestalt."

Precisely.  I find that audiophiles typically have to look inside the black boxes that are producing music, and I think that's what Holt was talking about being "fouled up".  Black boxes (the PA system--how it does what it does) are there for a reason: to achieve the objective of stimulating the listeners music gestalt without trying to simultaneously specify how to achieve that goal.  That's a typical problem for audiophiles.  How you achieve good or accurate sound reproduction isn't nearly as important as achieving it--and enjoying it.

 

That the Grateful Dead's Wall of Sound PA/venue music amplification system didn't meet the other needs of all the customer segments (including cost, reliability, maintainability, operability, transportation setup and take-down time, design/development timeline, and overall product size) speaks to a lack of success. Only the excesses of the implementation path chosen are gawked at today.  The system itself had a very short working lifespan.  But the system further elicited the real customer needs and demonstrated that, in particular, that better sound quality was achievable than the current state of the art PA systems.  That was the payoff.

 

Chris

[boom3]

I'll add to the original Wall topic...I could hear instruments from distinct areas...in other words, "imaging" when that term was not yet used by most audiophiles. I was a rookie audiophile at that time and I was in awe of the banks of Macs with their glowing meters.

 

In 1974, the typical rock act PA used two stacks of speakers and some acts were still using banks of Fender cabinets and VOTs for each player, which made balancing tough. These acts' sound screamed out on axis and it was prudent to sit about midway back. A unified PA lets the mixer control the overall balance and loudness, and that is among other things what the Wall accomplished. The overall impression was not so much a Wall as a bow wave of sound. I was closer than I should have been, about 30 feet from the stage, so I did not hear the back of hall experience that Bob Weir alluded to.

 

Because we were among the first in line, we got in on the sound check, and the band performed some of the more esoteric songs for us, until the rent-a-cops ran us out to wait for the formal opening. Another thing I remember is that Jerry was not bearded for this concert.

[haydukej]

11 hours ago, boom3 said:

I'll add to the original Wall topic...I could hear instruments from distinct areas...in other words, "imaging" when that term was not yet used by most audiophiles.

This to me would seem very likely as each instrument had its own section per the diagram below. I t hink most of us would've loved to hear this setup. I am curious though as to why horns weren't considered by then. Maybe they were and just not documented.

 

Here's the Dozin link for furthur reading if anyone is inclined.

http://www.dozin.com/wallofsound/

 

[garyrc]

Before the days of the Wall, the Dead briefly borrowed  Klipschorns from Don Helmholts* to try them out.  I don't know what they thought of them.  Klipschorns had been used several years before in artificial corners made of plywood, onstage at the 1958 Brussels World's Fair, so Don probably mentioned that option to them.

 

The thing about the aluminum dust capped JBL D130, D131 and family, and those with an "F" added (F is for Fender, made by JBL, with a rubberized surround to prevent tearing) is that they overloaded pretty well, and since they rolled off very fast in the treble ("hottest" to 5K, diving to -10 at 7K, -15 at 12K) they themselves did not provide the detailed grunge of distortion overtones.  I can't see what tweeters the Dead were using, because the photos aren't good enough.  It would be interesting to know where they crossed over.  Does anyone have this info?  JBL, depending on the application, crossed over to 175s at 1,200 Hz, 375's at either 500 Hz or 800 Hz (depending on the horn), and 075 at 2,500 Hz or 7,000 Hz, depending on whether there was a midrange below them.  In one photo, the Dead's tweeters look almost like EV T35s or T350s.  The D130 had the same EIA efficiency rating as a Klipschorn ~ 54 dB, which would make them both within a dB of 104 dB at 2.73v at 1M.  I'm guessing that both were tested in the midrange only.  So for about the same SPL, but lower modulation distortion, can you see a stack of K-horns in artificial corners, numbering the same as those JBLs?  Skyscrapers!

 

*Don Helmholts (I'm pretty sure he ended his name with an "s," not a "z," like the other guy) was an engineer who was first at Berkeley Custom Electronics, then Pro Audio in Oakland, where he was labeled the best bench tech in the Bay Area by the Bay Guardian, then at Resistance Repair.  

[hsosdrummer]

On 7/22/2018 at 5:28 PM, garyrc said:

I can't see what tweeters the Dead were using, because the photos aren't good enough. 

 

The curved vocal array and drum stacks used none other than the venerable EV T35 tweeter. (If it was good enough for PWK...)

 

At the time the only JBL tweeter available was the 2402 (the silver bullet), but since its dispersion was 40 degrees conical at 10kHz, it wouldn't work at all in an array. The 2405 (the slot with the wedge) could have been arrayed if mounted with the slot oriented horizontally (its dispersion was 25 degrees vertical and 90 degrees horizontal), but I don't think it was developed until after The Wall had been retired.