Accuracy versus Musicality

[pixelthis]

This link is aimed at speakers, but the same ideas apply to entire systems. I think this guy did a great job of mapping out the differences between accurate and musical. He uses words like precise, refined and emotional though.

http://www.sonicflare.com/archives/s...nic-circle.php

Need any help with those let me know.
And I am "refined" because I LIKE b&w ?
I bought those because I thought they were precise
Now I am totally confused

[basite]

If I remember correctly it's about $300... which is the real problem with it... It sounds very good for a clock radio... but who pays $300 for a clock radio???

that's nothing...

our Tivoli model 2 cost more I think...

seen Meridian's clock radio? well, that's something that costs too much

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[RGA]

... to Soundhounds if you want to prove Audio Note is better than Magneplanar. I have read the Norwitz article a good many times and though he make some valid observations in the end I come away unconvinced. In particular, I'm unconvinced by his arguments against accuracy -- unavoidably that is the underlying thrust of his comments. On the practical side I simply don't agree with his rejection of a reference set of records for evaluation.

Of course comparisons between the 20.1 and comparably price ANs is moot because I'll never own speakers in that price range or half it. I think the Maggies, including the 1.6 does all the "musical" things very well. For the umpteenth time, "pounding" is irrelevant to me given the music I listen to and at the volumes I listen.

And I'd guess there are 5-10X more Magneplanar owners out there that AN owners and I doubt that's entirely fortuitous.

I guess I'm a planar kind of guy. Not necessarily Magneplanar, though: I would like more opportunity to hear Apogees as one example, or Soundlabs as another.

I'm surprised since you made one of his arguments against accuracy. To be truly accurate to a recording with your system you would have to be at the recording. You would need to remember exactly how everything sounded you would have to buy all of the equipment recorded. So if CD A was recorded in Germany with speaker brand xyz on amp lmb then you would need both the amp and cd player (assuming of course that the CD or LP has perfect copying ability from what you heard (which it doesn't). And you need to listen to that CD on that system. But when you put in CD B recorded on AAA speakers and amp ZZZ then in yet another different room you would then need to have that room completely recreated. You have 100 cds you might need 100 different set-ups and 100 different rooms to be perfectly accurate and it still would not be do to the failing of the recording equipment.

Not using reference recordings makes sense on a number of fronts because we get tied to the way our current stereo (which we may like) goes about reproducing music. Maybe the piano is a little to the left and we like it like that but it may actually be dead center and that "may" be the more accurate loacation - but we're used to hearing it a certain way and any deviation means the "new" system must be wrong. In reality it was us that was wrong by having an expectation bias on what we're used to hearing. Certainly that may aid our preference but not for seeking accuracy.

There are probabably 100 times more Bose owners than Magenpan owners and 10000 times more Ford owners than Ferarri owners but that does not make the high sales units better. You have the misguided impression that the only reason to go with AN is because they "pound better" which is true but they're designed for classical music. Leonard Norwitz is a classical musician and reviews classical music - and he was AN's distributor years back. A lot of ex panel/planar guys out there made the shift. At the very least you know they won't sound like a typical box to get planar/panel guys off their panel/planars. Not all of course because panels have a signature that is unique to themselves. But if something comes along that can make acoustic instruments sound more realistic and also have the other added bonuses then some will make the upgrade.

IMO you have the best value for the dollar Magnepan speaker where price performance is tough to beat with the music that will be used on them.

[E-Stat]

To be truly accurate to a recording with your system you would have to be at the recording. You would need to remember exactly how everything sounded you would have to buy all of the equipment recorded.

I was with you up until your last qualification. I played a minor role in the Telarc recording of ASO's Firebird conducted by Robert Shaw and have a unique perspective. There was a decided difference between hearing the performance live from row F and hearing it later downstairs played back through the Soundstream recorder driving Threshold amps and ADS monitors. Mind you, both of those components were quite good (owned both at various times), but I find others do far better justice to the live event.

Not all of course because panels have a signature that is unique to themselves.

Indeed. Well positioned dipolar speakers (as in far away from corners and walls) deliver a more realistic presentation of the space experienced at live acoustic instrument concerts to these ears than do monopoles. Not to mention in my case the absolute coherency of using a full range virtually massless driver. Rock music, on the other hand, arguably needs the *slam* of monopole dynamic woofers as found in those *live* events.

rw

[RGA]

E-Stat

The Norwitz article is attacking accuracy from a differentiation perspective - the system that differentiates the most recordings the most is more accurate. My issue with the article (which I go by) is that it still won't get you to absolute accuracy - it stands to reason that if you have a 100 recordings and system A reveals quite a different perspective on all 100 of them while system B makes 30 sound more or less the same and another 30 and the remaining 40 into 3 general camps then it's of lesser resolution. The problem is that such a thing is still relatively subjective and incredibly time consuming.

Leonard made the case that you don't need the speakers in the recording session for comparison by contrast to work - but for absolute accuracy to the recording you would have to get that nutty. After all most all recordings were recorded on boxed dynamic loudspeakers and not a panel. But I like a lot of Panels over most boxed loudspeakers.

My view remains that a speaker needs to play ALL music equally well. If a bass guitar are drum kick calls for impact bass then a speaker MUST be able to do it. How can we be serious about a loudspeaker that can't muster what is called for on the source disc and which the amplifier is sending to the speaker only to have the speaker bottom out? If it can't produce that then how does it follow that it is going to produce the piano any better - which goes deeper and can fill a room. My argument is that the panel that can;t do the impact bass also isn't doing the acoustic instrument (that lean in the lower registers) justice either.

This is the biggest weakness of most average small panel louddspeakers and why ML tried to add dynamic woofers to get that semblence of bass, dynamics, pressure, back into the equation. Why spend on a midrange only speaker when you lose 4 octaves top and bottom? Bigger panels I like - the quad 2905 where the bass is there for most music and it has a sweet fast open sound and no ribbon issues in the treble that sound unnatural to me. But basically the 2905 (or 989) is the bare minimum panel for me - and it's $14,000. And you still can't really play anything in the Pop/rock/trance/Jazz full scale classical at anything above medium volume levels. I'd say it's better suited as a relaxing bedroom loudspeaker that wash over the ears in a most delightful all day listenable way. But $14k made in China and you need a damn big bedroom.

I have to say though that most of my listening is doen at medium to low volume levels and that is why I would mostly be happy with the 2905 and I genuinely like this speaker and the 989 before it. The Sonus Faber Cremona is something like $11,000 and it's really not clearcut. I'm not convinced that either are "better" than the Tannoy Kensington at $8k - they each have their appeal - the Kensington has the low power amp capability which is intriguing while the Quad is less boxy but then it has less dynamics and bass because it does not have the needed box. I would recommend all three highly - all three I could listen to over long sessions - all day listenable etc.

[bobsticks]

Eee bah gum, the lads got it right! You know when its accurate/musical because you'll be drawn in to the experience whether you like it or not. If the performance is conveyed in a meaningful way, then thats accurate enough.

In the words of the very musical and highly accurate Daleks....Exterminate! Exterminate!

Shaggy's back!!

[bobsticks]

My view remains that a speaker needs to play ALL music equally well. If a bass guitar are drum kick calls for impact bass then a speaker MUST be able to do it. How can we be serious about a loudspeaker that can't muster what is called for on the source disc and which the amplifier is sending to the speaker only to have the speaker bottom out? If it can't produce that then how does it follow that it is going to produce the piano any better - which goes deeper and can fill a room. My argument is that the panel that can;t do the impact bass also isn't doing the acoustic instrument (that lean in the lower registers) justice either...

And as the words came out of your mouth and were intimated by Stat, there will never be the "perfect speaker" because of this, specifically, the relation of how it(music) is produced to how it's reproduced. I've theorized on these pages before that rock/electronic music will never be reproduced by panels as well because intrinsic to the actual production of the stuff are dynamic cones---woofers to thump. E-Stat and Flo may be perilously close to achieving some parity out of sheer size and brute force but in the end it's all similes in a world of metaphors.

Ya goes with what has the least amount of objectionable characteristics, enjoy as wide a breadth of music as time will allow and call it a day.

[E-Stat]

Leonard made the case that you don't need the speakers in the recording session for comparison by contrast to work - but for absolute accuracy to the recording you would have to get that nutty.

Fair perspective. He strives for accuracy to the recording as his system reproduces it. I strive for accuracy to the musical event. With most pop music, however, the situation is reversed. The last thing I want is faithfulness to the *live* event. I want better than an ear shattering wall of monophonic mud.

My view remains that a speaker needs to play ALL music equally well.

Laudable goal, but there are always compromises. Especially for when with some music, sound reinforcement speakers (and their colorations) are part of the musical event.

If a bass guitar are drum kick calls for impact bass then a speaker MUST be able to do it.

Then the question becomes which is more important - timbral accuracy or sheer volume? My preference clearly is for the former.

If it can't produce that then how does it follow that it is going to produce the piano any better - which goes deeper and can fill a room. My argument is that the panel that can;t do the impact bass also isn't doing the acoustic instrument (that lean in the lower registers) justice either.

Here I simply disagree. Benefiting from some room gain, my stats are virtually flat to 25 hz. They do low bass. The natural wavefront of a 35 hz concert drum wafts past you with all of its weight. You *perceive* organ pedals. What they do not do is 100 db low bass. Nor punches to the solar plexus. A piano is a wonderful test of coherency and full range stats live to reproduce them sounding like a single instrument.

This is the biggest weakness of most average small panel louddspeakers and why ML tried to add dynamic woofers to get that semblence of bass, dynamics, pressure, back into the equation.

They do that because it is cheaper to throw in a 10" woofer than to quadruple the panel area.

Why spend on a midrange only speaker when you lose 4 octaves top and bottom?

I agree wholeheartedly. 80 hz - 5khz is not particularly wide bandwidth. The U-1s are nine and a half octave speakers.

I have to say though that most of my listening is doen at medium to low volume levels and that is why I would mostly be happy with the 2905 and I genuinely like this speaker and the 989 before it.

A funny thing happens with extremely high resolution speakers - they sound *louder* for a given output than do lesser systems. 650 watts only gets me peaks in the low 90 db range. Which is quite acceptable for me (and to the health of my hearing).

rw

[E-Stat]

I've theorized on these pages before that rock/electronic music will never be reproduced by panels as well because intrinsic to the actual production of the stuff are dynamic cones---woofers to thump. E-Stat and Flo may be perilously close to achieving some parity out of sheer size and brute force but in the end it's all similes in a world of metaphors.

This is what I am saying. As for Flo, the Grands come with some rather outrageous dynamic cone woofers.

rw

[bobsticks]

This is what I am saying. As for Flo, the Grands come with some rather outrageous dynamic cone woofers.

rw

Ooops, true enough...big woofers, big woofers.

[Auricauricle]

[QUOTE=pixelthis]

Pig contests? What kind of "pig" contests?

It's an experiment. I think there remains an unexplored sonic territory that cannot be reproduced via conventional channels. Woofers and tweeters occupy a certain place on the aural spectrum, but somewhere there is an untangible quality of musical production that if tapped into can make a real difference. I will devise speakers that do just this and the UNIVERSE WILL BE ALL MINE!!! Ha ha!!

I will call them "Squealers"

(Ahem)

[bobsticks]

[QUOTE=Auricauricle]

It's an experiment. I think there remains an unexplored sonic territory that cannot be reproduced via conventional channels. Woofers and tweeters occupy a certain place on the aural spectrum, but somewhere there is an untangible quality of musical production that if tapped into can make a real difference. I will devise speakers that do just this and the UNIVERSE WILL BE ALL MINE!!! Ha ha!!

I will call them "Squealers"

(Ahem)

I think I read somewhere that the police used "The Squeller" in the riots in the Sixties, and evil, shrill high-pitched device to stun folks into submission. Mebbe go the other way with it...http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/14/m...att-snow-horn/ ...then the universe can be yours. I'm cool with that, I've got my own travels and agenda ahead...

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Chines...f2912be1cf04b7

[markw]

I think I read somewhere that the police used "The Squeller" in the riots in the Sixties, and evil, shrill high-pitched device to stun folks into submission.

Now I know why my first would never tell me what she did for a living before we got marrried.

[markw]

Accuracy is relative. Is it what I hear from the eighth row center of the State Theatre in New Brunswick, or from the fifteenth row right in the Count Basie Theatre in Red Bank? Or is it what I hear from a corner of the Irridium when Les Paul is playing on a Monday night with a pickup band? Or is it what I'll be hearing in a few weeks when we hear the NRPS at the Stone Pony?

It's a relative term and, as E-Stat touched on before, it doesn't exist in the real world. It's just what one wants to THINK is what they would hear live if they were there.

But, they probably would be wrong.

[Worf101]

I ran into this the first time I upgraded my equipment from a Pilot receiver and basic JVC speakers to an Onkyo unit with some Ohm Walsh 2's. I quickly discovered how badly some of my CD's sounded.all of a sudden, no bass, no mids all brittle and alike. But I sound found out that most first generation CD's sounded like this. Those AAD transfers sucked. Later on when albums became engineered for CD with a fuller range of bass and mids, the newer system sounded wonderful. My current system is not 'great" but it sounds marvelous. I upgraded my mains and my receiver and can't be happier. Accurate, nah, musical yah!!!!!

Da Worfster

[Spancticles]

a friend of mine likes to say
if your system sounds boring
listen to more interesting music

he really gets quite evangelistic about it