Those who own Audioquest cable...what do you think?

[JW Audio]

Sometimes, its the system that's responsible for the large images, and not necessarily the recording. Probably the best example would be high quality SET amps. I remember the first time I tried a pair in my system. Images of vocals and instruments became huge. The center vocal image took up most of the wall behind the speakers.

 

I personally don't like the vocal to take up the wall behind the speakers. They should be to scale of the size of the vocalists mouth or head at the largest. That is to scale. Some of the late 50"s and early 60's had the rawest, best sounding (get lost in the realism of the stage) recordings in my vast music collection. In a well treated room the recording (on a system that is done well) should put you in a trans like state that blurs the line between recorded playback and actual musicians playing instruments in a smoky night club environment. (I'm a near field listener)

 

I know all of this is subjective, and we all like what we like, but some of those Wes Montgomery recordings, after stereo recording came on the scene, are down right spooky.

[semente]

Sometimes, its the system that's responsible for the large images, and not necessarily the recording. Probably the best example would be high quality SET amps. I remember the first time I tried a pair in my system. Images of vocals and instruments became huge. The center vocal image took up most of the wall behind the speakers.

 

Don't you mean low quality S.E.T. amps?

I mean, shouldn't high quality ones partnered with the adequate speakers (multi-way horns) perform reasonably transparent?

I'm not sure whether they should be used in a multi-amp configuration, though, as I've not had any...

 

R

[semente]

Not in this case. A plethora of microphones INSIDE the piano's lid is responsible for Waldrep's wall-to-wall pianos.

 

The thing that bugs me the most about such recordings is not so much the portrayal of imaging/soundstage (which is indeed wrong) but the adulterated timbre, the brighter than life balance and the hyper-realist presence of mechanical noises (one does not hear such things in a live performance at common listening distances).

 

 

It never ceasses to amaze me how much importance is given to "soundstage" by audiophiles when in fact it's just an effect, a gimmick.

It's gotten to a point that reading the word "soundstage" in a post or review just puts me off...and what's sad is that it looks like it's all some people care about.

 

 

Acoustic music is about tone - timbre and decay in natural acoustic environments.

Go to the church next Sunday, sit close to the choir, close your eyes and listen to it and whichever instruments they're playing...can you "see" the "soundstage"?

 

Listen to Mario's recordings; they're quite close to what one will experience live both tonally and from a sense of acoustic perspetive.

BIS, Dorian, ProArte also make good recordings...natural-sounding, unspectacularly good recordings.

 

R

[semente]

I personally don't like the vocal to take up the wall behind the speakers. They should be to scale of the size of the vocalists mouth or head at the largest. That is to scale. Some of the late 50"s and early 60's had the rawest, best sounding (get lost in the realism of the stage) recordings in my vast music collection. In a well treated room the recording (on a system that is done well) should put you in a trans like state that blurs the line between recorded playback and actual musicians playing instruments in a smoky night club environment. (I'm a near field listener)

 

I know all of this is subjective, and we all like what we like, but some of those Wes Montgomery recordings, after stereo recording came on the scene, are down right spooky.

 

It's all down to the recording techniques really.

 

If you close-mic you lose ambience.

It's as simple as that.

Then you can do one of two things: add some reverb to fake some sort of decay or use some ambience mics if the recording was made in a reverberant space and add that sound into the mix.

This is what many producers are doing in orchestral recordings, two main mics (at a civilized distance, though), two ambience mics.

 

If there are sonic cues for the original space in a recording you'll get "transported" to the room where the recording took place.

If not, the musicians will apear to "be" in your own room.

 

Near-filed listening in a treated room will benefit those listening to recordings that were made in a natural acoustic space since you will be listening mostly to the recorded sound and not the room.

On the other hand, such setup is inadequate for "soundstage" effect which is mostly down to room-generated reflections.

 

As for the relative position of the singer, I think that it depends mostly on tonal balance (EQ); a change in the presence zone will move things back or forth a bit.

But singer is usually close-mic'ed (except in classical recordings) so you get this strange excess of moth noises and detail as if your ear was only a foot away from the mouth and yet the scale of the sound is of a person that's standing 8-10ft away...strange.

 

R

[Jud]

On the other hand, such setup is inadequate for "soundstage" effect which is mostly down to room-generated reflections.

 

R

 

Just to note that phase in the recording and if/as maintained by the playback system also contributes a great deal to soundstage, localization, etc.

[semente]

Just to note that phase in the recording and if/as maintained by the playback system also contributes a great deal to soundstage, localization, etc.

 

I think that humans use phase for localization only up to the high-mids and beyond that they use amplitude differences.

Some minimalist mic setups are better than others at conveying those imaging properties.

 

In my opinion imaging and "soundstage" are different things.

Imaging is a property of the recording that may depend on the relative position between instruments/vocals and mics or on panning made during the mixing process.

"Soundstage", not to be confused with the soundstage where performances take place, is an effect, the result of room-generated reflections which create an impression of depth and decay on "dry" studio recordings which do not have these qualities.

 

R

[CR250]

I personally don't like the vocal to take up the wall behind the speakers. They should be to scale of the size of the vocalists mouth or head at the largest. That is to scale. Some of the late 50"s and early 60's had the rawest, best sounding (get lost in the realism of the stage) recordings in my vast music collection. In a well treated room the recording (on a system that is done well) should put you in a trans like state that blurs the line between recorded playback and actual musicians playing instruments in a smoky night club environment. (I'm a near field listener)

 

I know all of this is subjective, and we all like what we like, but some of those Wes Montgomery recordings, after stereo recording came on the scene, are down right spooky.

 

The image wasn't behind the speakers, I was just using the wall for a size reference. And yes, if you listen near field, the images were larger than life. But if you have a situation where you must sit further away from the speakers than typical, its a benefit.

[CR250]

Don't you mean low quality S.E.T. amps?

I mean, shouldn't high quality ones partnered with the adequate speakers (multi-way horns) perform reasonably transparent?

I'm not sure whether they should be used in a multi-amp configuration, though, as I've not had any...

 

R

 

I'm not sure I understand your post. I only discussed image size because it was relevant to the post I was responding to. I don't know how you come up with low quality, transparency, horns or even multi amp because I didn't comment on those qualities. The speakers I used were a pair of mid 90's Mission floor standers. Something like 2 8"'s a mid and a soft dome tweeter. Very typical design. 90db sensitivity. All the amps I tries were mono's as is usually the case with SET amps. Functionally, the 2 mono amps work exactly like a stereo amp, the only exception would be a vertical bi-amp isn't possible with mono amps. But my setup was typical. One mono amp per speaker. I didn't try horns because I never cared for them and don't have any laying around. The only odd speaker I tried them with was a pair of old ML CLS's I had. Surprisingly, none of the amps had any trouble driving them in a medium sized room at normal listening volumes.

[semente]

The image wasn't behind the speakers, I was just using the wall for a size reference. And yes, if you listen near field, the images were larger than life. But if you have a situation where you must sit further away from the speakers than typical, its a benefit.

 

Are you sure that there's a relation between near-field listening and imaging size?

I have trouble understanding why.

 

R

[CR250]

It probably depends on how much headroom your equipment has.

 

I can fit my head completely inside the bass port on the cabinet while wearing a medium size hat.

[Jud]

I can fit my head completely inside the bass port on the cabinet while wearing a medium size hat.

 

Have you tried it with music playing? Hip-hop?

[Paul R]

I think that humans use phase for localization only up to the high-mids and beyond that they use amplitude differences.

Some minimalist mic setups are better than others at conveying those imaging properties.

 

In my opinion imaging and "soundstage" are different things.

Imaging is a property of the recording that may depend on the relative position between instruments/vocals and mics or on panning made during the mixing process.

"Soundstage", not to be confused with the soundstage where performances take place, is an effect, the result of room-generated reflections which create an impression of depth and decay on "dry" studio recordings which do not have these qualities.

 

R

 

Mmm - well, I am definitely coming from an outlier position on this one.

 

I find the soundstage presentation, which to me is imaged by the speakers from the input, to be the single most important factor in how I judge the sound of a system. I don't care if the "soundstage" is artificial or natural, as long as the clear presentation of it is imaged from the speakers.

 

Everything else is important to me as well, but a speaker without the delightful soundstage / imaged presentation is just not very exciting for me.

 

The soundstage or imaging or whatever one chooses to call it, seems to me to be affected most by phase (timing), then by frequency response (accuracy). YMMV!

 

 

-Paul

 

P.S. - The size of that image, and the size of instruments in that image, are what annoys my wife about Maggies. She thinks everything is a little too big - I think it is much more accurate to real life sizes.

[CR250]

Are you sure that there's a relation between near-field listening and imaging size?

I have trouble understanding why.

 

R

 

I guess its a matter of splitting hairs. The image itself can't change in size if you're in a fixed location, but if you move away from it, its gets smaller. You can look at it from either perspective, but the end result is the same. Its no different than looking down on cars from a tall building. The cars didn't change in size, but they appear smaller.

[CR250]

Mmm - well, I am definitely coming from an outlier position on this one.

 

I find the soundstage presentation, which to me is imaged by the speakers from the input, to be the single most important factor in how I judge the sound of a system. I don't care if the "soundstage" is artificial or natural, as long as the clear presentation of it is imaged from the speakers.

 

Everything else is important to me as well, but a speaker without the delightful soundstage / imaged presentation is just not very exciting for me.

 

The soundstage or imaging or whatever one chooses to call it, seems to me to be affected most by phase (timing), then by frequency response (accuracy). YMMV!

 

 

-Paul

 

P.S. - The size of that image, and the size of instruments in that image, are what annoys my wife about Maggies. She thinks everything is a little too big - I think it is much more accurate to real life sizes.

 

You can get the same results either way. With a speaker like Magnepan, the size of the drivers forces the scale of the images to be larger. That's why electronics like Bryston work so well with them. Powerful SS amps that use a lot of feedback generally produce small scale images. You don't hear this limitation so much with the large ribbons. And when you consider the fact that Magnepan speakers really like power, its easy to see why the match works so well.

 

The same thing can be done with traditional dynamic driver speakers, but the configuration needs to be different. McIntosh towers are a perfect modern example. The speaker forces huge images. Old Polks, Pipedreams, Infiniti, ets.. speakers that use big arrays of drivers are all designed for the same purpose.

 

Your Vandersteen's are different. I happen to use them myself. If you need to alter image size with them, it has to be done with electronics.

[semente]

Powerful SS amps that use a lot of feedback generally produce small scale images.

 

Can you elaborate on this?

 

R

[Paul R]

You can get the same results either way. With a speaker like Magnepan, the size of the drivers forces the scale of the images to be larger. That's why electronics like Bryston work so well with them. Powerful SS amps that use a lot of feedback generally produce small scale images. You don't hear this limitation so much with the large ribbons. And when you consider the fact that Magnepan speakers really like power, its easy to see why the match works so well.

 

The same thing can be done with traditional dynamic driver speakers, but the configuration needs to be different. McIntosh towers are a perfect modern example. The speaker forces huge images. Old Polks, Pipedreams, Infiniti, ets.. speakers that use big arrays of drivers are all designed for the same purpose.

 

Your Vandersteen's are different. I happen to use them myself. If you need to alter image size with them, it has to be done with electronics.

 

Jud's the one with the lovely lovely Vandersteens, but I do drool over a pair of them on occasion.

[CR250]

Can you elaborate on this?

 

R

 

Yes I can, but you probably won't be happy with my answer. I listen and compare. Over the years, I've tried thousands of combinations of audio components in every way I can think of. One trend that emerges with regards to scale and image size, is that high parts quality, fully balanced, 0 feedback (Global) designed SS amps and preamps, generally create larger images in a more 3D presentation. Just to give some general examples, products from companies like Ayre, BAT, Pass and Theta, generally image better than brands like Bryston, Parasound, Krell and Rowland. I want to be very clear in that I'm not bashing any of those brands in any way. Sometimes those brands that I find don't image as well, can do other things better. Coupled with speakers that can get around some of their weaknesses, it can end up being the best choice. Like Btyston/Magnepan. Also remember I'm only giving a handful of examples, out of hundreds of brands.

 

I'm also not claiming that any of this is fact. Its just how I do it. When I put a system together, I plan out what I need to achieve sonically, and I work towards that goal. In the end, if I get my result, sometimes I can explain it technically, and sometimes I can't. I'm OK with it either way. I realize others do things completely different, and if that's what works for you, they your way is best. I'd much rather see someone do something completely different than I would and get it right, than do it my way and get it wrong. Sorry, I know I'm going on, but I know its possible to start WWIII with some of my comments. That's not my intention.

[CR250]

Jud's the one with the lovely lovely Vandersteens, but I do drool over a pair of them on occasion.

 

You're right. Sorry about that. Just another reason to hate lawyers.

[semente]

Yes I can, but you probably won't be happy with my answer. I listen and compare. Over the years, I've tried thousands of combinations of audio components in every way I can think of. One trend that emerges with regards to scale and image size, is that high parts quality, fully balanced, 0 feedback (Global) designed SS amps and preamps, generally create larger images in a more 3D presentation. Just to give some general examples, products from companies like Ayre, BAT, Pass and Theta, generally image better than brands like Bryston, Parasound, Krell and Rowland. I want to be very clear in that I'm not bashing any of those brands in any way. Sometimes those brands that I find don't image as well, can do other things better. Coupled with speakers that can get around some of their weaknesses, it can end up being the best choice. Like Btyston/Magnepan. Also remember I'm only giving a handful of examples, out of hundreds of brands.

 

I'm also not claiming that any of this is fact. Its just how I do it. When I put a system together, I plan out what I need to achieve sonically, and I work towards that goal. In the end, if I get my result, sometimes I can explain it technically, and sometimes I can't. I'm OK with it either way. I realize others do things completely different, and if that's what works for you, they your way is best. I'd much rather see someone do something completely different than I would and get it right, than do it my way and get it wrong. Sorry, I know I'm going on, but I know its possible to start WWIII with some of my comments. That's not my intention.

 

Could you characterize a bit better what you mean by imaging "better"?

 

Low even order harmonics produce an effect that can be sensed subjectively as "longer" decay and "richer" spaciousness; I wonder if this is somehow related with your image scale/size description.

 

And do you listen mostly to studio recordings or classical music?

 

R

[gmgraves]

I'll take your word on all the above since I could never even begin to find any of the writings I've read on symphony recordings. I do believe its possible that your very engrossed in the audiophile recording world and may be unaware of what is going on outside of that club.

 

When it comes to symphonic recordings, I don't really care what goes on the outside of "that club", as you put it. I made it very clear, Sal, in all my posts on this subject, that I was talking about the very best classical recordings. When it comes to that subject I am a perfectionist. Why should I care about or even comment upon mediocre (or worse) recordings?

 

I think you just might be pulling our legs when you claim to never heard of the Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions. If you picked up any of the audiophile mags in the 88-89 era you couldn't have missed the articles, it was a R2D4 if I remember correctly. Not that I think much of the performances, right up there with Chesky's Track Record, nothing much to listen to IMHO. But you don't live in that dark a cave.

 

I assure you, Sal, I am not pulling your leg. I have never even heard of "Cowboy Junkies". If they were extensively written about in the late '80's, even if I did see articles about them, those articles made absolutely no impression upon me, and I certainly didn't read those articles. Sal, you are corresponding with someone who wouldn't know a song by Arrowsmith, or The Grateful Dead, or the late David Bowie, if I heard one. All I know about Pink Floyd is that their drummer, Nick Mason, is a car guy, and shares my interest in Italian sports cars (even spoke with once at the Concorso Italiano in Monterrey CA. I had to be told who he was)!. Were it not for that common interest with him, I would likely never have heard of the guy and I am sure that I have never heard Pink Floyd perform. I have had many people tell me that I'm "out of touch", and I suppose that I am, but I don't care about this kind of music, so why should I go out of my way to stay "in touch" with it?

 

I like a vast variety of music. I love American and Celtic Folk music (I'm a big Ian & Sylvia fan), I love instrumental bluegrass, I'm a big fan of the "American Song Book" (Cole Porter, Gershwin, Rogers & Hart, etc.) Sinatra, Sarah Vaughn, Dinah Washington, Tony Bennett, etc. I love jazz, and big-band swing, and I'm especially fond of film music (Miklos Rozsa, Dmitri Tiomken, Alfred Newman, Elmer Bernstein, Jerry Goldsmith, John Barry, etc., etc., etc. ) and I have a largeSo, It's no and very eclectic record and CD collection. So, it's not just classical music that I'm slavishly devoted to (I'm listening to an Internet-based Bossa Nova station even as I write this - I love Samba and Tango, and Cuban-style latin music).

[esldude]

When it comes to symphonic recordings, I don't really care what goes on the outside of "that club", as you put it. I made it very clear, Sal, in all my posts on this subject, that I was talking about the very best classical recordings. When it comes to that subject I am a perfectionist. Why should I care about or even comment upon mediocre (or worse) recordings?

 

 

 

I assure you, Sal, I am not pulling your leg. I have never even heard of "Cowboy Junkies". If they were extensively written about in the late '80's, even if I did see articles about them, those articles made absolutely no impression upon me, and I certainly didn't read those articles. Sal, you are corresponding with someone who wouldn't know a song by Arrowsmith, or The Grateful Dead, or the late David Bowie, if I heard one. All I know about Pink Floyd is that their drummer, Nick Mason, is a car guy, and shares my interest in Italian sports cars (even spoke with once at the Concorso Italiano in Monterrey CA. I had to be told who he was)!. Were it not for that common interest with him, I would likely never have heard of the guy and I am sure that I have never heard Pink Floyd perform. I have had many people tell me that I'm "out of touch", and I suppose that I am, but I don't care about this kind of music, so why should I go out of my way to stay "in touch" with it?

 

I like a vast variety of music. I love American and Celtic Folk music (I'm a big Ian & Sylvia fan), I love instrumental bluegrass, I'm a big fan of the "American Song Book" (Cole Porter, Gershwin, Rogers & Hart, etc.) Sinatra, Sarah Vaughn, Dinah Washington, Tony Bennett, etc. I love jazz, and big-band swing, and I'm especially fond of film music (Miklos Rozsa, Dmitri Tiomken, Alfred Newman, Elmer Bernstein, Jerry Goldsmith, John Barry, etc., etc., etc. ) and I have a largeSo, It's no and very eclectic record and CD collection. So, it's not just classical music that I'm slavishly devoted to (I'm listening to an Internet-based Bossa Nova station even as I write this - I love Samba and Tango, and Cuban-style latin music).

 

Hey one of Nick Mason's better CD's is the one from the book about most notable cars in his collection. That book came with a CD where they recorded sounds of each car doing a lap on a race course. Would be good to redo it and use a GoPro so you would have sound and video.

[gmgraves]

Do you realise you're somewhat contradicting yourself here?

 

No, I don't realize it. I've read my reply over several times, and can't imagine what you consider a contradiction. I see none,

 

I don't have any of Waldrep's piano recordings, but I can't complain about the Guitar Noir album with Laurence Juber. Granted, on that recording the main focus in on a single guitar, but the supporting instruments don't seem out of place either.

 

I have his DVD "sampler" and Many of the cuts are jazz-type small ensembles that invariably employ piano. In the video, it can easily be seen that he has a "stretcher' bar across the inside of the piano in every cut with several microphones spaced along it. This puts said mikes inches from the piano's harp, and from the sound one can easily hear that he has the bass-end of the strings routed to the left channel, and the treble-end of the strings routed to the right channel. This results in a piano that not only stretches across the entire stereo stage, but a piano that doesn't even sound like a piano.

 

This brings me to my next complaint about Waldrep's work. He tends to place microphones very close to the instruments he's recording and also mikes them monaurally and mixes them into the production electronically. I've even seen cuts on his DVD where it appears that he is using a contact mike on some instruments. While I realize that this is standard practice in pop recording, Waldrep is supposedly catering to audiophile listeners with his productions. It is for that reason that I hold the man to a higher standard. Anyone who has ever done any serious recording knows that close-miked instruments and contact-miked instruments do not sound like those instruments were designed to sound to an audience. Nobody, for instance, sticks their heads inside of a piano to listen to the Brandenburg Concertos, or even Bill Evans. The sound of a piano from that perspective is much too bright, and there is too much of the mechanical sounds of a piano mechanism picked up. So, not only does the piano end-up sounding as big as all outdoors, but it sounds wrong to boot. While I'm at it, people don't listen to saxophones or flutes with their ears pressed up against the instruments either.

 

Music, when recorded, should STILL sound like music. And stuff recorded in this manner simply doesn't.

[gmgraves]

Hey one of Nick Mason's better CD's is the one from the book about most notable cars in his collection. That book came with a CD where they recorded sounds of each car doing a lap on a race course. Would be good to redo it and use a GoPro so you would have sound and video.

 

 

I'd buy that!

[esldude]

I'd buy that!

 

http://www.amazon.com/Passion-Speed-Twenty-Four-Classic-Century/dp/1847326390/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1457127618&sr=8-7&keywords=nick+mason

 

This is a newer edition of the book than I had. I had "Into the Red" which is still available, but may not have the CD. I also don't know if the same cars are on the CD for this newer edition though some are the same.

[mansr]

No, I don't realize it. I've read my reply over several times, and can't imagine what you consider a contradiction.

 

You said small ensembles are best multi-miked, then went on to bash Waldrep for doing exactly that.