Advice for Beginners - consider this test from an audio club

[Tizman]

Exactly.

[Tizman]

Obviously, I’m joking about the triple blind test.  I am not joking about the difficulty in localizing musicians in the classical concert series though.  It was surprisingly difficult to precisely place the musicians in space with my eyes closed.  This may be because the venue, a large glass greenhouse, was not ideal.  Some instruments were easier than others to place, but for the most part, the “imaging” was not great.  There was an obvious sense of general direction, but not the pinpoint placement I get from some recordings at home.  It was shocking to me that it was so difficult.  The venue’s ambiance was there in large quantities though, which is something that I find harder to achieve at home.  Sorry about the OT posts, I will cease and desist now.

[garyrc]

4 hours ago, Tizman said:

Speaking of concerts, I subscribed to a concert series this past summer and attended 15 classical music concerts, performed by a full orchestra, all sitting in different seats in the first three rows.  The imaging was terrible.  It is much better at home on the hifi.  They should have used a tube amp and Klipsch speakers... 

• As you say, "live" imaging is not necessarily good.  I have spent many hours sitting in about the 10th row when on one of the many rehearsal breaks a percussionist takes, and also in about that location during rehearsal of an orchestra I had nothing to do with, in another hall.  The same with concerts by the Oakland symphony, the San Fransisco symphony, an orchestra conducted conducted by Carmine Coppola touring with the silent film Napoleon, and the SFSU orchestra, as well as a (pitifully small) Broadway  orchestra for The Wiz.  Close and far away, the imaging was inferior  to the better imaging I got with Khorns or JBLs in my various home systems.  But I don't miss it.   At home, or during a concert, imaging isn't very important to me.  My rank order, if I were forced to construct it, from most important to least would be undefined tonality and spatiality   on top, then dynamics, low distortion, and frequency response, with imaging on the bottom.   But, of course, that is too simple.  Perhaps the most important thing of all, as J. Gordon Holt, founder of Stereophile, put it in favorable comments about Klipschorns, is "the triggering of the listener's musical gestalt."
• In a concert with low accuracy of localization, "poor imaging," if you will, a few instruments are still sharply placed.  One of them seems to be the instrument called "orchestra bells." or, sometimes glockenspiel.  I heard the Oakland Symphony when everything was smushed and amorphous, but the orchestra bells were very sonically localized.   But, hey, in a film on DVD with unspectacular imaging, but pretty good sound, Around the World in 80 Days (1956 version, 70mm Todd-AO with 6 channel sound) the orchestra bells are also very localized.

[Schu]

Xylophone or Marimba... I've tuned my system to for instruments like these, an others, shine.

The next logical step for me is to get a player piano... which I am actually thinking of doing.

[wvu80]

5 hours ago, garyrc said:

But, hey, in a film on DVD with unspectacular imaging, but pretty good sound, Around the World in 80 Days (1956 version, 70mm Todd-AO with 6 channel sound) the orchestra bells are also very localized.

 

I know exactly what you're talking about because of the genre of music I'm passionate about, drum and bugle corps.  You can have 80 horns playing and the bells will cut through and overpower 80 brass instruments.  In recordings from the 1980's we used to say the mic "liked" the bells, meaning the balance was horrible.

 

This next clip isn't a bad recording, it's the marimba cam from the DCI World Champion Blue Devils, Concord, California.  It's a cool vid to watch two mallet and four mallet technique, and you can see the demand on a world championship percussion line.

 

 

 

[Travis In Austin]

11 hours ago, Tizman said:

We should do a double blind test!  We can get an actual live orchestra behind a curtain (terrible imaging in my experience), a tube amp and Klipsch speakers with a few hundred pipe cleaners twisted together for speaker wires, and a $34 T-amp with $3500 speaker cables and Klipsch speakers, and do a double blind test (triple blind?).   

PWK already did that, he won.

[robert_kc]

12 hours ago, Tizman said:

Speaking of concerts, I subscribed to a concert series this past summer and attended 15 classical music concerts, performed by a full orchestra, all sitting in different seats in the first three rows.  The imaging was terrible.  It is much better at home on the hifi.  They should have used a tube amp and Klipsch speakers...

 

9 hours ago, Tizman said:

Obviously, I’m joking about the triple blind test.  I am not joking about the difficulty in localizing musicians in the classical concert series though.  It was surprisingly difficult to precisely place the musicians in space with my eyes closed.  This may be because the venue, a large glass greenhouse, was not ideal.  Some instruments were easier than others to place, but for the most part, the “imaging” was not great.  There was an obvious sense of general direction, but not the pinpoint placement I get from some recordings at home.  It was shocking to me that it was so difficult.  The venue’s ambiance was there in large quantities though, which is something that I find harder to achieve at home.  Sorry about the OT posts, I will cease and desist now.

 

I can’t speak to the venue (“a large glass greenhouse”) you attended.   Are the venue’s acoustics well suited for classical music?  Was the venue designed as a symphony hall?   Is the venue recognized as having world class acoustics for classical music?  Did the orchestra perform without a sound reinforcement system?  

 

I have full season tickets to the symphony, performed in a modern world-class symphony hall that is known for excellent acoustics.   And I have full season tickets to the opera, performed in a modern world-class opera house that is known for excellent acoustics.  These two performance venues are described as two distinct structures, each acoustically isolated, contained within a “shell” that provides a common lobby area.   Each hall was designed and built for its specific purpose.  (In other words, each venue reflects unique acoustic design goals.)   Neither hall uses sound reinforcement for classical concerts.  (Pop concerts are a different story.)  The sound quality in both is excellent.

 

I’ll share a few observations.

 

FWIW, I would never sit in the first few rows.   My seats are mid-hall, in the first row of one of the lowest elevated sections.   I can see the entire stage.   The sound is amazing.

 

I have never considered “imaging” as an important characteristic of the sound in a symphony hall or opera house.  And I’ve never heard anyone state this as a design goal for a symphony hall or opera house.  The thought has never occurred to me when attending a live concert to close my eyes and attempt to localize the individual musicians.    I sit in the first elevated section so that I can see the musicians, and hear beautiful sound.   I’ve never attempted to analyze the sound from my seat in the symphony hall – but off the top of my head I guess I’d call it beautifully balanced sound.   

 

I’m not a design expert.  With that said, my understanding is that the acoustical goal for a symphony hall is for the audience to hear “blended” sound.   OTOH, my understanding is that the acoustical goal for an opera house is to be able to hear and understand the singers (without microphones), and for the singers’ voices to blend appropriately with the orchestra sound.   There are many other design goals, including minimizing “dead spots” in the hall, minimizing extraneous noise, optimizing what the musicians on stage are able to hear, etc.  Again, I’m not an expert in acoustic design, but I’ve never heard anyone state as a goal that an audience member should be able to close their eyes and localize an instrument on stage.

 

My perspective regarding classical music is that the “work of art” is the live performance in a hall that has world class acoustics appropriate for the music.  Setting aside venues with poor acoustics, my goal for my home hi-fi system is to remind me of what I heard in the symphony hall or opera house.   (Not the other way around.) 

 

When you refer to “pinpoint placement I get from some recordings at home”, are you referring to recordings that were artificially created using electronic tools (e.g., pop music), or recordings of classical music?

[Tizman]

robert_kc:  I am referring to pinpoint placement with some classical music recordings.  That said, and from memory, it seems to happen much more often with smaller ensembles, and very often with chamber music, and less often with full orchestra recordings in large halls.  

 

The “hall” was a very large glass greenhouse, with a peaked roof.  All internal surfaces are glass and metal.  It was definitely not designed to be a concert hall.  That said, I have also attended many performances in a properly designed and built concert hall and opera house, and noticed the same lack of localization of musicians.  This is not to say that this lack of localization in any way minimized my enjoyment of the concerts.  It is just an observation that I don’t recall anyone making before.   On the other hand, the web is full of observations about listeners of audio systems  being able to precisely place musicians on a stage.  

 

In some respects, this all underlines the artificiality of our priorities/expectations when we discuss music reproduction in the home.  It would appear that PWKs priorities as a designer were more inline with what a person actually experiences when they attend a concert than what most other speaker designers today prioritize. Direct radiator speakers and  dome tweeters do an excellent job of localizing musicians, while dynamics and other types of “realism” often fall to the wayside.  Klipsch’s horn based speakers do a great job of presenting the sound of an actual real-life concert experience, and they also provide localization cues when they are present in the music.   

[robert_kc]

I believe that different people have differing sensitivities to various aspects of sound.   For example, apparently some people are very sensitive to spatial presentation - but I don’t care about that.    

 

For my hi-fi systems, I care about the natural timbre of orchestral instruments being reproduced faithfully, and recreating (within reasonable limits) the full sound of a large-scale symphony orchestra (i.e., frequency range and dynamic range).

 

Perhaps next time I’m at the symphony (purpose-built symphony hall that seats 1,600), I’ll try to remember to close my eyes and try to localize instruments.    

 

Similarly, next time I attend a performance of chamber music (Pražák Quartet and Zemlinksy Quartet performing in an historic theater that seats 1,078), I'll try to remember to close my eyes and try to localize instruments. 

 

For me, It's just not normally part of my enjoyment of live music to close my eyes and try to localize the instruments on stage. 

 

And "imaging" is not a criterion in my evaluation of my hi-fi systems.  My main criteria are that I want to be drawn into the music, and forget I'm listening to a hi-fi, and have the illusion that I'm in the concert hall.  (Except the part where someone sitting right behind me S - L - O -W - L -Y unwraps candy or a cough drop, or rustles the pages of their program.)

[Dave A]

19 hours ago, ODS123 said:

Dave,, what are you talking about?  ..I did NOT make any such generalized statement about Klipsch Pro gear sounding inferior.  But you did make such a generalized statement..  You said their present Heritage speakers are made from MDF and as such are inferior and are the handiwork of greedy cost-cutting accountants.  I merely pointed out that this is not supported by objective fact.  MDF is used widely throughout the industry b/c it is easier to shape, is less resonant, and easier to veneer.

So we are back to deflection and changing the topic and here I thought you wanted to "stay on track". Please reread the Cornwall vs Pro thread and refresh your memory of the ridicule you placed on the pro gear you have never heard before. Do you really want me to go back and quote them all here? MDF falls flat on it's own lack of merit which evidently is not a concern of yours.

  I know this will be hard for you but generally companies list the advantages of their products from the best to the least in that order. Did you notice that Klipsch listed A/V environments first? Would you consider home theaters as audio visual and stereo setups as perhaps audio?

19 hours ago, ODS123 said:

Though I might have the last time I was at Hershey Park, or Philly's 30th St. Train Station

See you did say Klipsch Pro stinks once again. Your clear inference is this is where Pro belongs and it is a continuous thread in all your comments. You would never denigrate your pristine audio environment with such stuff is what comes through all the time. It is clear you look down on pro then go on to say you may have never heard it as evidence of the validity of your baseless opinion.

 

19 hours ago, ODS123 said:

Listening matters a great deal.  ..And even more when you don't know which amp your hearing.  ..Otherwise, seeing the Tube amp with it's alluring glow is apt to sound warm; and the black S/S amp with it's hard metal faceplate and it's thin white lettering (think Bryston) is apt to sound "clinical and sterile."..  ..Or maybe recalling a review about a particular amp, or it's reputation from a web forum.  

 

Yep, listening is everything - particularly when you take steps to control biases.

  I am very happy you have no biases although your comments sometimes seem very clinical and sterile.

 

19 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

Did I say that?

NO I was quoting your quote from OD

[Dave A]

16 hours ago, Tizman said:

Speaking of concerts, I subscribed to a concert series this past summer and attended 15 classical music concerts, performed by a full orchestra, all sitting in different seats in the first three rows.  The imaging was terrible.  It is much better at home on the hifi.  They should have used a tube amp and Klipsch speakers...

 Never heard a full orchestra but the chamber music  was fabulous. Maybe you should try that next time.

[ODS123]

1 hour ago, Dave A said:

 MDF falls flat on it's own lack of merit which evidently is not a concern of yours.

 

I know this will be hard for you but generally companies list the advantages of their products from the best to the least in that order. Did you notice that Klipsch listed A/V 

See you did say Klipsch Pro stinks once again. Your clear inference is this is where Pro belongs and it is a continuous thread in all your comments. You would never denigrate your pristine audio environment with such stuff is what comes through all the time. It is clear you look down on pro then go on to say you may have never heard it as evidence of the validity of your baseless opinion.

 

 

MDF is a better material b/c it's less resonant..  Hence, it's used throughout Klipsch's line, including the motorboards of it's Pro Series.  Not sure where you're getting your info.  Vandersteen, KEF, Legacy, Dynaudio, etc. etc. etc..  ALL use MDF for their top of line speakers.  Hard to imagine they chose MDF over birch plywood for the purposes of saving MAYBE a few dollars in material cost.  I say MAYBE b/c the material cost savings is probably erased by the greater cost of shipping speakers made of MDF b/c they are MUCH heavier.   ..In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if MDF was actually a more costly material.

 

Also, i DON'T think their Pro Series stinks.  ..Not at all.  You're just annoyed b/c I refuse to take your word for it that their Pro series sounds better in ALL listening environments - including a small home listening rooms - something which they clearly were NOT engineered for.

 

[jason str]

1 hour ago, ODS123 said:

 

MDF is a better material b/c it's less resonant..  Hence, it's used throughout Klipsch's line, including the motorboards of it's Pro Series.  Not sure where you're getting your info.  Vandersteen, KEF, Legacy, Dynaudio, etc. etc. etc..  ALL use MDF for their top of line speakers.  Hard to imagine they chose MDF over birch plywood for the purposes of saving MAYBE a few dollars in material cost.  I say MAYBE b/c the material cost savings is probably erased by the greater cost of shipping speakers made of MDF b/c they are MUCH heavier.   ..In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if MDF was actually a more costly material.

 

Also, i DON'T think their Pro Series stinks.  ..Not at all.  You're just annoyed b/c I refuse to take your word for it that their Pro series sounds better in ALL listening environments - including a small home listening rooms - something which they clearly were NOT engineered for.

 

 

MDF sucks but its cheap, the proper plywood ( voidless) is stronger and longer lasting.

 

Bracing is key.

 

I don't believe ultra thick MDF is the answer to anything but a backache.

 

And for pro gear, see how long MDF lasts on the road.

[ODS123]

9 minutes ago, jason str said:

 

MDF sucks but its cheap, the proper plywood ( voidless) is stronger and longer lasting.

 

 

Explain why so many of the best speakers in the world have cabinets constructed of MDF.  ..And if it's heavy enough to give a backache than it's probably NOT cheaper as the added cost to ship certainly cancels out any production cost savings.  ..So, again, please explain.

[jason str]

4 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

 

Explain why so many of the best speakers in the world have cabinets constructed of MDF.  ..And if it's heavy enough to give a backache than it's probably NOT cheaper as the added cost to ship certainly cancels out any production cost savings.  ..So, again, please explain.

 

Cost and ease of construction is the only advantage, veneer is less prep on MDF as well.

 

 

[ODS123]

17 minutes ago, jason str said:

 

Cost and ease of construction is the only advantage, veneer is less prep on MDF as well.

 

 

 

Ease of construction makes sense as MDF is far more consistent from sheet to sheet, and much easier to get a clean splinterless edge.    ..But not cost.  MDF is way heavier hence more expensive to ship.  I would agree that ply is perhaps more durable in those cases where speakers are constantly moved - such is not the case of course w/ home or studio speakers.

[jason str]

19 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

 

Ease of construction makes sense as MDF is far more consistent from sheet to sheet, and much easier to get a clean splinterless edge.    ..But not cost.  MDF is way heavier hence more expensive to ship.  I would agree that ply is perhaps more durable in those cases where speakers are constantly moved - such is not the case of course w/ home or studio speakers.

MDF is more consistent, yes.

 

Plywood is much more durable and much more resistant to moisture damage as well making for a lasting cabinet.

 

The lightweight and moisture resistant MDF is a poor product choice as well and defeats the cost savings to boot.

[ODS123]

3 minutes ago, jason str said:

MDF is more consistent, yes.

 

Plywood is much more durable and much more resistant to moisture damage as well making for a lasting cabinet.

 

The lightweight and moisture resistant MDF is a poor product choice as well and defeats the cost savings to boot.

 

Long lasting cabinet?  ..I have 25 year old MDF speakers that look brand new.  And there is no greater need for these, or any home/ studio speakers to be moisture resistant than the there is for the amplifiers and components that drive them.  ..Sounds like you're suggesting a solution that is in search of a problem.

 

[jason str]

2 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

 

Long lasting cabinet?  ..I have 25 year old MDF speakers that look brand new.  And there is no greater need for these, or any home/ studio speakers to be moisture resistant than the there is for the amplifiers and components that drive them.  ..Sounds like you're suggesting a solution that is in search of a problem.

 

 

Yes, longer lasting.

 

Drop your MDF cabinet on the corner by accident and let me know how it holds up.

 

If you don't dust or move them its possible to have light wear but people move things around and those that do know what holds up over time and what does not.

 

 

[ODS123]

49 minutes ago, jason str said:

Yes, longer lasting.

 

Drop your MDF cabinet on the corner by accident and let me know how it holds up.

 

If you don't dust or move them its possible to have light wear but people move things around and those that do know what holds up over time and what does not.

 

Yes, well I have no greater need for my speakers to hold up to frequent handling, and possible dropping, than my components.  ..I've had 10 pairs of speakers over the last 30 years, all made of MDF, and NONE was ever dropped on a corner.  ..So i'm not sure what advantages plywood construction would have accrued to me or pretty much anyone I know.