Getting soundstage depth out of Klipsch speakers...

[jdm56]

It all makes sense to me! (but then again, I've probably had more than my share of lumps to the noggin.)

Let me try this again: I do not find that speakers, much less amps, wires, etc. differ in their ability to reproduce RECORDED depth information. And I feel klipsch speakers can reproduce this RECORDED depth of image as well as anything else.

I am trying to draw a distintion between RECORDED depth, and added depth effects that are caused by the way some speakers radiate sound into a room. For instance, dipoles have the reputation of being speakers that produce deep, three-dimensional images. But what has this trait to do with accurately reproducing a recording? Nothing - it is just an artifact of the way dipoles couple to a room. With most klipsch speakers, you get relatively little room interaction above 300hz or so. In other words, you hear more speaker sound and less room sound. So, because there is no "artificial" ambience being added, klipsch may be thought to throw a more shallow soundstage. Which, relatively speaking, they do, but the point is, neither "effect" has anything to do with the recording! They are both just traits attributable to the way a particular speaker radiates sound.

[mobile homeless]

I beleive your last paragraph, more specifically the conclusion, contradicts your premise. You say there is varying levels of recorded depth in a recording, but that gear does nothing to reveal this depth in the recording any differently, only exhibiting their own traits all the while saying that some speakers reveal the depth IN the recording more than others.

I will state yet again, that if there is NO DEPTH AT ALL IN A RECORDING, then a good system will reproduce this trait in your listening room, while the recording with MORE depth will also be revealed. I have seen a specific system to a better job of REPRODUCING the recorded DEPTH (almost 98% of thte time a live recording) than other systems.

Some systems obscure this detail and some are better. In this mix, I have seen ALL the components have a role, including speakers and their placement, room interaction, amps, cable, setup etc. All of this relates back to the idea that some setups and gear/rooms are better able to REPRODUCE the depth in a recording.

kh

[maxg]

James,

I am struggling to understand the logic:

"They are both just traits attributable to the way a particular speaker radiates sound."

I think that that is something we all agree on, except that I contend that this can be adjusted by adjusting the position of the speakers (and their toe-in).

On thing that has never really bothered me is whether or not any increased depth is closer to reality. I contend that I have no idea what the reality was (except in the rare cases where I am listening to a recording of an event I actually attended - and even then we are comparing to my recollection of the sound from my position in the audience).

What we are left with therefore is what sounds or feels more real - a fairly arbitary concept.

When I listen to music I do so from the Sweet spot. 99% of the time I am not doing anything else (i.e. listening to music is not a background activity). I close my eyes and my mind fools me into thinking I am there. Anything that adds to that illusion is a good thing for me. Depth of soundstage adds. Its absence detracts.

This is not to say that I would value soundstage above the ability to render a violin to sound like a violin - these are not either/or characteristics. As is often the case I want it all.

Is this gain in the sense of depth an artifact? To a point it may be. No more so, I would contend, that the softer sweeter sound a tube amp might have over an SS amp.

I think Kelly has covered the issue of certain recordings having greater soundstage depth than others fairly well. Were this entirely an artifact then all recordings would show depth on a given system that displays it. Whils there are some holes in that philosophy it has some merrit.

Looking at this another way. Playing a depthless recording on 2 systems - one of which is good at depth and the other not. The soundtage depth produced should be much the same. The differences are only obvious when a deep recording is played.

Further, playing a good deep recording on 2 systems both of which are strong in that area should yield similar results in terms of the 3 dimensional locations of instruments. This is something I have experienced on very different systems (planar Vs Horn as it happens).

I dont think there is anything wrong with not caring about depth (or any soundstaging issues for that matter) - nor is there anything wrong with wanting it. If it adds to your enjoyment then go for it - if not, ignore it.

For those that do care, however, then there are a great many issues that can go into increasing it, from interconnects to toe-in.

[jdm56]

OK, I may be flogging a dead horse, but here goes:

The reason klipschorns are said to not throw a deep soundstage compared to some other speakers, is not due to a shortcoming on the part of the klipschorn design. It is simply because with a k-horn you hear mostly direct sound from the speaker, whereas with something like a Martin-Logan CLS, you hear a relatively high percentage of reflected, indirect sound, specifically the delayed rear radiation of the panel, after it has bounced off the front wall. This is what imparts the impression of stage depth, and it has nothing to do with whatever recording is being played. It is an artifact of that speakers radiation pattern, period. It has nothing to do with accuracy, or any unveiling of recorded depth.

Recordings, as has been stated, do differ in their amount of depth information. But an electrostat has no edge over a horn in bringing out this RECORDED depth, only in adding it's own. So if you listen to a recording that has a lot of depth information through a pair of electrostats, the way that speaker radiates sound will be very synergistic with that particular recording. And the sound may be even closer to what the original sound actually was. But if so, it is a just a happy accident, a case where a particular speakers radiation more closely mirrors the live sound. But if we use the same example, but substitute a recording with little depth of image, then the klipschorn would be the beneficiary of the happy accident. It's radiation pattern would most closely mimic that of say, a studio rock recording.

Put another way, whatever depth of image or lack of same is recorded, is going to be most faithfully reproduced by a speaker that interacts the least with the room it's in. And horns tend to provide the most direct sound of any design. So while the horn design will not add "room depth" to a recording that subjectively, may benefit from it, neither will it add depth to recordings that don't benefit from it. IOW, it is more faithful to the recording, if not the gestalt of the recording itself.

ps: "gestalt" is a $64 dollar word I'm throwing in for free because it's the Christmas season. Enjoy.

[AnalOg]

James,

I don't believe anyone is going to argue your point, only add that good quality gear & synergy will allow those characteristics found in recordings to shine more so.

Tom

[mace]

Maxg,

I haven't read this thread, only your initial post. Sorry if this was discussed. I do in fact have my Cornwalls toed in quite a bit so that they point to a spot well in front of my listening position. I've found that overall sound stage (width and depth) improved. Plus, another benefit is that you can sit pretty much anywhere in the room on the far wall and there is some assemblence of a soundstage. This is because, as you move off center, the far speaker is pointing at you and the near speaker pointing away. I got this idea from one of the PWK papers (thanks again arto). So far I like it, since I can't always sit in my "listening spot".

In a few months I'll change the toe-in so that the Corns point right at my ears to see if this again sounds better or worse. I have found that there are psychological influenes with changes like this. So, once I change something in my system, I usually change it back after a few months to see if the original change was really "better" or just "different".

Regards,

Mace

[rtaylor]

----------------

On 12/17/2003 2:53:50 PM James D McCall wrote:

OK, I may be flogging a dead horse, but here goes:

The reason klipschorns are said to not throw a deep soundstage compared to some other speakers, is not due to a shortcoming on the part of the klipschorn design. It is simply because with a k-horn you hear mostly direct sound from the speaker, whereas with something like a Martin-Logan CLS, you hear a relatively high percentage of reflected, indirect sound, specifically the delayed rear radiation of the panel, after it has bounced off the front wall. This is what imparts the impression of stage depth, and it has nothing to do with whatever recording is being played. It is an artifact of that speakers radiation pattern, period. It has nothing to do with accuracy, or any unveiling of recorded depth.

Recordings, as has been stated, do differ in their amount of depth information. But an electrostat has no edge over a horn in bringing out this RECORDED depth, only in adding it's own. So if you listen to a recording that has a lot of depth information through a pair of electrostats, the way that speaker radiates sound will be very synergistic with that particular recording. And the sound may be even closer to what the original sound actually was. But if so, it is a just a happy accident, a case where a particular speakers radiation more closely mirrors the live sound. But if we use the same example, but substitute a recording with little depth of image, then the klipschorn would be the beneficiary of the happy accident. It's radiation pattern would most closely mimic that of say, a studio rock recording.

Put another way, whatever depth of image or lack of same is recorded, is going to be most faithfully reproduced by a speaker that interacts the least with the room it's in. And horns tend to provide the most direct sound of any design. So while the horn design will not add "room depth" to a recording that subjectively, may benefit from it, neither will it add depth to recordings that don't benefit from it. IOW, it is more faithful to the recording, if not the gestalt of the recording itself.

ps: "gestalt" is a $64 dollar word I'm throwing in for free because it's the Christmas season. Enjoy.

----------------

I believe I see your point. You will find that the greatest speaker ever made, the coveted BOSE 901 has alot of reflections to add to the depth. I also believe that the quality of the components will allow the information (depth) that the mike recorded to be conveyed into the speakers and so into the room. It's all good. Peace

[rtaylor]

I believe I see your point. You will find that the greatest speaker ever made, the coveted BOSE 901 has alot of reflections to add to the depth. I also believe that the quality of the components will allow the information (depth) that the mike recorded to be conveyed into the speakers and so into the room. It's all good. Peace

----------------

I am just kidding, hello, hello? I really like the Cubes better!

[krispykoilz]

maxg,

The deepest soundstage I have heard with my Chorus II's was when I first purchased them. I hooked them up using the 12 gauge wire that I had been using for 10 plus years. The soundstage was coming from well behind the speakers. I remember listening to a piece of music, can't remember what it was right now, that had a sound 50' behind the speakers. I thought I would freshen up the wires and cut a foot off each end. The ends were burnt and corroded, there was green dust in them. The soundstage moved to in front of the speakers and the 50' now sounded like 25'. I could have kicked myself.

[maxg]

Well that is a weird result. It is the first time I have heard of a soundstage being affected by merely shortening a cable. Just goes to show that nothing can be ignored in this insane hoby of ours.

As it happens I am listening to my very first DVD audio disk as I write. Having bought the Soundblaster Audigy 2 USB sound - what - card? it came with software that allows you to play DVD audio disks in 2 channel format on the regular DVD (+R/+RW in my case) drive on the computer.

The speakers are also Creative speakers (SBS 250 - made in china - isnt everything these days!!). Sound is better than I have ever heard coming out of these speakers (but still not great).

The funny thing is that they do create a tiny soundstage (placed on either side of the portable computer I am using) - WITH DEPTH! - to scale of course. Speakers are about 20 inches apart and I am slightly further away in the centre. The lead singer appears to be somewhere around the space bar on the keyboard - supporting instruments slightly behind the speakers.

Seems you dont always need high end stuff to get a soundstage. Not sure it would survive speaker placement much further apart though - but that is not a problem on this desk!!

[D-MAN]

Speaking of recorded soundstage material; to experience what I would consider a completely "flat" soundstage, try AL STEWARTS "The Year of the Cat" CD. For an extreme example of "depth" in a recording try Telarc's "Fuare and Durufle - REQUEIM" cd - full orchestra, massed choir and pipe organ... If I was stuck on a deserted island and could have only ONE cd, that would be it... Unfortunately there is a very high-freq something on it that can be noticed from time to time. But I digress...

I forgot to mention that I have my midrange/tweets pointed out toward the outside walls (to a degree) on the Khorns so that they point directly toward the listening position approx 9 ft away (center). This provides a more direct-to-the-ear path which certainly helps the soundstage reproduction but may increase the reflectivity of the walls somewhat...

So the wall reflections of the mid and tweets need taming with this approach, but I found it to be worth the effort.

Having listened to the Magnapans (the bigguns), I am more enthralled with the Khorns dynamism. Just as clean and clear, but MORE of it with far less power required! Whereas the Khorn "imaging" is not quite the same, I think that I am in a smaller room than I heard the 'planers and also note that I don't have to put them in the middle of the room to get the sound like the 'planers (the Khorns take less space). The Magnepans were almost in the center of the room spaced about 6 or 7 feet apart, about 7 feet away from the listening position, and that was the width of the reproduced "soundstage" from them. Didn;t really notice the "depth" but "imaging" across the soundstage seemed to be very precise.

So even in a smaller room with less-than-perfect acoustics, I like the Khorns better- less space required as they fit in the corners, less power required, bigger soundstage, just as good depth, better dynamics.

Nuff said.

DM

[jdm56]

True. There probably has never been a bigger speaker that is yet so unobtrusive, as the big ol' klipschorn. I really don't know why more manufacturers have not designed speakers especially for corner placement. The only other one I recall is the Allison corner speaker (from the seventies I think).