User avatar
tubeactive
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:08 pm

What is Your Preferred Sonic Perspective ?

Post: # 36670Unread post tubeactive
Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:07 pm

I am hoping this subject gets some cool responses. When you are either monitoring in the studio or simply kickin' back and playing some favorite tunes, what is your preferred listening perspective ? Surely, we are all hoping for enjoyable sound, while many of us hope for the most accurate sound possible; right ?

How about your perspective with regards to listening position ? Do you favor the illusion of a soundstage with "presence" or "depth" or do you imagine being onstage with the musicians ?

Can you achieve a 3D presentation in your studio ? If not, would you like that ?

If you do achieve 3D in the studio, can you share with us which system combo or equipment accomplished the three dimensions of height, width and depth to your delight ?

Okay; enough questions. Let me start with some of my answers, please....Whether I am listening at my workbench or main listening room, I do prefer an enjoyable, high fidelity presentation. I have chosen playback equipment that assures I can get the best from a given recording, providing some resemblance of a soundstage; even with mono recordings. I try for maximum width and height, while preferring the illusion of more depth than a forward presence of sound, way beyond the speakers or small room boundaries. I need to hear the "action" of the instruments; not just the tones. This requires "fast" sounding playback equipment if I want to sense the fingering of the instruments within some defined space; so we can actually point to the musicians within that defined soundstage.

Achieving these requirements was not an easy accomplishment; requiring many years of trying out gear. I bought and traded gear during the decades when hifi was still a bonafide hobby, when studio engineers abounded and soundmen helped one another. Before I elaborate on some of my history, maybe I should summarize the types of playback equipment which accomplishes my goals. Speakers need to be accurate in their frequency response, without annoying peaks or valleys. They need to be able to throw some sort of soundstage, without forcing a fake illusion (like Bose or omnidirectional multi-driver speakers) so my chosen "fast" sounding tube amps can hold that holographic 3D imagery stable. Phono cartridges must be carefully chosen for their speed abilities so they can discern all the "action" of all the instruments while providing the proper soundstage. Preamplifier and turntable/tonearm choices must perform synergistically. All of this equipment, even the cables must perform together with synergy. While my goals are high, my high fidelity demands can be achieved; without spending outlandish amounts of hard-earned money.

When I worked in genuine sound studios, it was many lunar eclipses ago, almost a full decade from the mid '70s through the mid '80s. Working within a performing arts theater complex, two of the five studios were genuine hifi; the other three supported rehearsal and/or "Off-Off Broadway" type venues. The mix-down studio overlooked one of the theaters if we opened the studio curtain on the forward window/wall or it overlooked the large sound studio if we opened the studio curtain on the side facing window/wall. Nearfield monitoring used corner mounted KLH two-ways with 10 inch woofers and competent paper cone tweeters, with the boxes mounted a bit higher than seated ear level. Their crossovers were simple, small parts count types, providing low phase shift, allowing a decent soundstage to be presented with either the BGW solid state or tubed RCA, Altec or Philips tube amps. The sound studio playback speakers were true JBL marvels, the two-way L-200 monitors (15 inch woofs, L85 tweets) sounded very decent with the BGW amps and fabulous with the Philips tube amps. As was the case back then, many "acts" provided tapes or even vinyl to be mixed in during playback or performance. R-R machines were Ampex tube or Crown 800s. Turntable chores were aptly provided by a Thorens TD-124 with a 12 inch transcription length (12 inch pivot to stylus) SME tonearm, Stanton 681EEE or 681A cartridge and a studio reference grade Shure SE-1 tube preamp. That preamp was fantastic, by the way, like a tweakable Dynaco PAS dual 12AX7 phono board with an added 12AY7 line stage including UTC line out transformers. Using this phono stage and patching into the mixing board as a passive volume control then patched into the rare Philips tube amps powering the JBLs provided some outstanding record playback.

Inside that mix-down studio, the KLH two-ways were competent monitor speakers, but certainly not a world beater. Thankfully, our psycho-acoustic memories are such that "everything sounds okay by itself." Only when you quickly change a like component can your psycho-acoustic memory confidently decide on which component sounded better. If the mix-down studio had room for the JBLs, I surely would have chosen the JBLs. Nevertheless, my sonic preference was "learned" quickly. The monitor speakers (and choice of amps) provided a soundstage, creating the illusion that the speakers set up the front of the stage and the musicians "appeared" behind the speakers; like they were on stage. With my home hifi, this sonic perspective still remains with me today. While I can appreciate listening to a more "forward" sounding system, I prefer a sound system provide more depth than forward, with wide width and height that enables my ear/brain (psycho-acoustics) to "create the illusion" that the performers are onstage way behind the speakers.

My nearfield speakers have changed through the decades. Like my studio system, I started with a similar pair of speakers; the original large Advents, designed by the K of KLH, Henry Kloss, who originally worked at AR before KLH. In the early '80s, I traded a now expensive stereo tube amp(H-K Citation II) for a pair of Rogers LS3/5A mini-monitors. Nice for nearfield in a small room, these British studio "legends(?)" do not sound great at low levels nor can they play cleanly at loud levels. Moreover, their complex, high parts count xovers destroy any efficiency, thus requiring highish power amps that cannot play loudly. The Advents still sounded more natural to me. Through some more gear trading, I tried some Quad ESL-57 Electrostats which sounded great with some amps in only one seat at only low or modest levels; another British "legend" of a speaker. Then, I stumbled on some full range drivers mounted in some rather large boxes. Wow ! No crossovers to mar the progression from woof to tweet. Soundstage was only limited by amp choices. Coax drivers were then tried, but their crossovers get in the way. Their soundstage was incredible, but their mid range can suffer because of the xover. Some full range 12s sounded awesome, like certain Philips/Norelco of Holland, but their box sizes were obtrusive. I gravitated toward full range 8s, mounted in "bass reflex" type boxes; then transmission line type boxes. I tried dozens of types.

Transmission Line (TL) type boxes are truly amazing. If you can find or make the right boxes, their TL/port doesn't just emphasize the driver's inherent low end resonance like a reflex enclosure, because the TL enhances and smooths out the bass ! My full range 8 inch Norelcos, with large magnets and a wide "whizzer cone" in the center, sit in small towers, about 8 1/2" x 9" x 4 feet high, with their TL ports forward facing near the floor. On spikes, this TL port's bass energy can be felt coupling to the floor. I highly recommend TL boxes and full range speaker drivers.

My amps tend to be two mono amps, one for each channel, with beefy power supplies and low or no feedback networks. For nearfield monitoring, with efficient speakers, simple Class A, Single-Ended Tube amps, even single 6BQ5/EL84 amps connected as pentodes with feedback, with beefy power supplies, can be very endearing. My reference dual mono amps use push-pull topology, with two triode output tubes per channel, but, they also use another triode output tube connected as the driver tube which passes through an interstage transformer(to invert the phase for push-pull topology) to the output tubes which pass through a very hifi output transformer to the speakers. The "speed" of these amps rivals the speed of the simpler single-ended type amps. The pp amps also sound larger and more powerful...

Well, I see this is becoming a rather long collective; to be resumed. For now, I would really like to hear about your sonic perspectives. Monitoring can be a most enjoyable sounding experience.

User avatar
tubeactive
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:08 pm

Re: What is Your Preferred Listening Perspective ?

Post: # 36694Unread post tubeactive
Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:12 pm

Sorry for the double post. I meant to post this on the more appropriate Playback forum; which I think I accomplished. However, I cannot seem to edit or delete this thread from this forum. Oh well, it is an interesting topic... :lol:

User avatar
Wayne Kirkwood
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:43 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas
Contact:

Re: What is Your Preferred Sonic Perspective ?

Post: # 36705Unread post Wayne Kirkwood
Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:05 am

Interesting thread.

I have a hard time listening to music from a stationary position unless I'm in a car. At home I tend to be an active listener pinned down in the sweet spot only when I'm trying to listen to something critically. I'm usually listening to music doing something else. Sitting down for more than a couple of minutes (other than at the computer) is pure hell for me. I tend to be the "task shark" swimming from room to room looking for something to pick up and put away etc. I am a passive listener of music.

I was recently asked to modify one of my MS encoders for live performance. It encoded left and right from a stereo guitar EFX rack into mid and side. The power amps then drive speaker arrays in an acoustic mid/side configuration. It's similar to the Aspen Pittman's CenterPoint SpaceStation or Ted Fletcher's OrbitSound. Before I shipped it I used it as much as I could. In a word: "Wow."

The concept of left and right and clearly-defined locations of elements in the mix (other than mono being a point source) are completely tossed out using this approach. It creates a big ambient sweet spot and is room-filling. Rather than the perspective of looking at an orchestra as a passive observer in the hall, you're on the stage with them. It's immersive. The task shark is in the sweet spot no matter where he swims. And the odd part is when a mono element pops out of the mix that you're not expecting it's startling because it's point source.

The music I enjoyed most during my limited time with this gizmo was Ambient. The worst music was anything off FM or compressed/transcoded with a "swimmy" L-R/Side channel.

I have JBL 4411's that I rarely use and 4312's in storage. I just recently restored a Marantz Model 27 that I ought to pair up with the recently re-foamed but unused 4411s. I have a large number of re-capped Minimus 7s which I love. (Particularly after changing x-over caps.)

Here's a shocker: My second-favorite passive listening source is a Tivoli Model One in a bright room. It's the best table radio ever made.

Post Reply