|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.68.56.213
In Reply to: Re: Quad Speakers posted by JimL on April 26, 2007 at 16:31:20:
I find that given a reasonably 'good' speaker and I don't want to go into the infinitely long discussion of what that means other than the classic low coloration and decent bandwidth and transients, the factors that seem to make a speaker sound live to me are linear changes in dynamics. The accuracy of the level changes is important to me. And there is the problem of the software. If it's compressed in any way like a lot of software is, it complicates judgements on the hardware. But I do feel that I get a sense of the dynamics from a good deal of the software. That means both macro and micro and I suspect the micro may be the more important of the two. Most speakers sound like wide bandwidth radios to me, they seem to compress everything even at low levels. Playing very loud tells very little. It may be loud but perhaps it should be even louder but how do you know when ones ears are already overloded.
And I'm still not convinced the Quads do very well at linear dynamics except at very low overall levels. I certainly respect David Chesky. The quality of his recordings can't really be questioned. But I stil have doubts about his statements. Experience and reputation increase the probability of ones statements being accurate; they don't guarantee it.
For what it's worth, I was a bit leary of writing my first comments. It's always dangerous to pick on a icon such as the Quads and especially perilous to pick on one that deserves to be an icon like the Quad. I do have tremendous respect for it. I have held back on many other audio icons for just that reason.
Follow Ups:
Well, in my view it is useless to argue about subjective impressions. What you hear is what you hear. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that to some extent perceptions of decreased or increased dynamics is related to linear frequency response - in other words, a slight boost in certain frequency ranges may lead to a perception of increased dynamics, and conversely a dip in the same range may lead to a perception of compressed dynamics. For example, horns, which tend to have relatively uneven frequency responses, are often touted as having great dynamics. Just a guess. Certainly, within its loudness limits, an electrostatic speaker should have very linear dynamics, objectively speaking.As to David Chesky, one of the reasons for quoting him is that, unlike most audiophiles, record producers actually HAVE listened to the original live sounds as well as the recording, and thus should have the best idea of what is on the record and what compromises have been made. Everybody else is just guessing.
Well then in reference to Chesky because he does recording, I suspect Gordon Holt would not be in total agreement with him. Gordon recorded the Boulder Symphony for over ten years and finally felt he got accurate reproduction(sounding like the live performances he recorded) when he finally got a set of ATC 50 powered monitors and they sound nothing like a Quad 57.
I have a lot of respect for both Chesky and Holt, as I'm sure you do. One reason why I used to pay more attention to Holt was that, unlike most reviewers, he used his own source material as references, which I felt made him more reliable as a reviewer. I've never heard the ATCs so have no comment on their sound. As I said before there's no arguing subjective impressions, and certainly no arguing subjective preferences.
It isn't frequency response because I get the same reaction to a dynamic speaker versus a non-dynamic one when I'm out of the room and frequency response is certainly different then.
Actually the whole question of what makes something sound live from the next room is a very interesting one, and most people have had the experience of hearing something in another room and knowing immediately it's live and not recorded. Most of the traditional speaker parameters - frequency response, dispersion, etc. would seem to be screwed up by the trip the sound wave takes from one room to the next. Maybe time coherence and lack of dynamic compression of the first arrival sound has something to do with it. Then there are the speakers that some say sound MORE live from the next room than when you're in the same room. I have NO idea what's going on there!
I've felt the reason a speaker sounds 'live' from out of the room is correct change in level(dynamics both macro AND micro) because that probably isn't screwed up by leaving the room like frequency response, etc. I've discussed this with Gordon Holt and he agrees.
Just to throw in my two cents worth. I had a pair of ESL-57 for many years while I was living in a small apartment with an untreated living room. The Quads were perfect for such an environment, as dipole radiators have reduced side wall reflections, and I could place them a long way from the back wall. I changed all the panels to One Thing Audio panels, and upgraded the EHT units as well. The sound was very transparent and microdynamics (or what you might call musicality) were excellent.
I then moved into a bigger place, with a properly designed listening room. The room has no parallel walls, a sloping ceiling, a built-in tuneable bass trap and the walls are lined with acoustic wood and fibreform for absorption/diffusion. The reverberation time is <0.5s, and there is no standing wave. Here, the Quads actually do less well. I was not able to get the listening volume up to realistic levels ( and this is with just two-year-old panels and EHT). When placed further apart then before (now about 9 - 10 ft apart), the imaging suffers unless I am seated dead in the middle. The bass has also become deficient without the help of the room.
So is it possible to retain the lovely midrange of the Quads while gaining better extension and SPL ? It is indeed possible. I put together a 3-way horn system using EV T350 tweeters, JBL 2450 midrange with wood horns and Altec 515E bass in a reflex cab. The crossover is active, the amps used for the Quads are now driving the midrange. On AB comparison, the midrange is easily the equal of the Quads, but with more dynamics and a slightly more upfront presentation, but the treble and the bass is a huge step forward., and needless to say the macrodynamics is beyond comparison.
I used to believe that there is nothing better than the Quad midrange and "speed", but now I know that this is absolutely untrue. Given the right room and a tight budget, the Quads are still hard to beat though.
If you're able to put the Quads 10 feet apart it's possible that the room is just too big, and/or you're sitting too far away, which would also explain why you can't achieve realistic levels. Remember Quads were designed for the average British home, which has relatively small rooms. I've used Quads in rooms that are less than 20 feet in biggest dimension, and in a roughly equilateral triangle with the listening seat about 7 feet from the speakers.
" then moved into a bigger place, with a properly designed listening room. The room has no parallel walls, a sloping ceiling, a built-in tuneable bass trap and the walls are lined with acoustic wood and fibreform for absorption/diffusion. The reverberation time is <0.5s, and there is no standing wave. Here, the Quads actually do less well. I was not able to get the listening volume up to realistic levels ( and this is with just two-year-old panels and EHT). When placed further apart then before (now about 9 - 10 ft apart), the imaging suffers unless I am seated dead in the middle. The bass has also become deficient without the help of the room."Looks to me that you have some issues with the room, except if the room is exceedingly large there will always be standing waves, dips and notches, non-parrallel walls not withstanding, did you take any measurements in your new room? The issue of realistic volumes is probably valid, but issues with imaging, seem to be room induced.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Absolutely. The room has been measured. While there must be standing waves, the specturm is spread out so that there are no obvious peaks.
My old room had a peak in the mid-bass region, which seemed to suit the Quads well. Could even sound boomy if not careful. With a "flat" room, the bass seemed to roll off much earlier.
My new room is very absorptive, and is obviously too large for the Quads. It measures almost 600 square feet. I had to turn the volume much higher than before I moved, and the Quads were obviously compressing the dynamics when compared to the horns. I was driving them with my DIY 25W F2a11 push pull amps.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: