Analyzing the reproduced sound. What do you prefer?

[David Matz]

What are your priorities in judging reproduced sound?


- midrange accuracy
- tonal balance
- low distortion
- frequency range
- imaging
- soundstaging
- dynamics
- anything else?

For me, it's the midrange, midrange, the midrange, dynamics, tonal balance, and frequency range. The others are less important.

What's it for you? Any electrostat owner not choosing midrange as first?

 

[churchill]

My top three are: female vocals, female vocals, female vocals, dynamics and imaging.

 

[risabet]

Emotional attachment! If I'm not in touch with the music and the musicians it might as well be a boom box.

 

[FOUNTAIN]

For me it is linearity across the reproduced frequency range/timbre(tonal) accuracy, soundstaging, waveform integrity/low distortion, and dynamics. I'm not sure if I would classify these in order of magnitude for my tastes, but rather the reproduced sound needs to be competent in all of these areas for musical satisfaction and my preferences.

 

[TomDac]

Emotional attachment! If I'm not in touch with the music and the musicians it might as well be a boom box.

Risabet nailed it.... If I'm listening in the sweet spot, and my breath is taken away, that's what hooks me.

 

[JonFo]

...

What's it for you? Any electrostat owner not choosing midrange as first?

Interesting question, the thing that first caught my attention and why I still am an ESL fan has to be the low-distortion at normal listening levels.
That low-distortion benefit is most obvious on midrange frequencies.

Therefore my list order is:

- low distortion
- midrange accuracy
- dynamics
- soundstaging
- imaging
- tonal balance
- frequency range

Delving further:

Low-distortion is just intrinsic in the low-mass ESL design, and a large radiating surface allows a line-source propagation front that projects much deeper into a room than a point source.

Midrange is the strong suit of an ESL, as by contrast, other designs have a nasty crossover in those ranges. And the fact that it's at such a low-distortion is what makes the contrast even sharper vs other designs.

I feel the dynamics of an ESL are peerless (no pun ) above 300hz. That low-mass line-array can energize a room with incredible accuracy at those frequencies.
Where most of the ESL line (except the CLX to some extent) falls short is in mid-bass and low-end dynamics, as nothing short of a closed-back line-source can deliver the 'punch' and energy at those frequencies with a sufficiently low distortion to balance the ESL's capabilities.

Soundstage is amazing, but again, more of a factor of it being a line source. And personally, I regard the dipole nature of ESLs as a liability in most instances.

Tonal balance is good, but very, very sensitive to amps. And even with a good amp, is not really that flat,
Although this is less critical in the age of room correctors like Audyssey.

Frequency range is good, again, depending on model. However, spectral balance across the dynamic range is quite variable still, mostly because a 4' line source can overpower a point-source dynamic woofer at higher SPL.

 

[Rich]

I find it very interesting that David listed a bunch of definite variable characteristics of reproduced sound, and Risabet came back with a subjective emotional "feeling" created in his own mind. Tonal balance is something that the speaker produces. An emotional connection to the music is something your brain produces. Two different people can listen to the same system and agree on all the different physical aspects of the sound, but one can form an emotional connection with it and the other not, based on all kinds of things unrelated to the actual sound the system is producing.

Mind you, I am not disagreeing with Risabet's statement. I think most of us would agree with him. When you have that emotional connection, that feeling of total immersion in the music and it seems like the performer is right there in your living room playing just for you, then you know you have reached the pinnacle. Regardless of all the other stuff. But I think the question David is really asking is: What aspects of the reproduced sound seem to be most important in creating that emotional connection for you?

For me, it is tonal balance and neutrality (i.e. not one frequency range being over or under emphasized in relation to the whole), imaging and soundstaging, and dynamics. All of these taken together create a very realistic and emotionally engaging experience. One other factor that really completes it for me and gives me that emotional connection Risabet referred to is what I would call liquidity.

I am not sure how to describe liquidity or what aspects of reproduced sound give it liquidity, but man, do you know it when you hear it. For me it is a combination of transparency and clarity of detail, but with a smoothness to it. When you hear every detail and yet the sound flows through your ears as smooth as silk. I think it is that liquidity that really brings out the beauty of the midrange, particularly in voices.

 

[risabet]

. . . and Risabet came back with a subjective emotional "feeling" created in his own mind. . . .

Mind you, I am not disagreeing with Risabet's statement. I think most of us would agree with him. When you have that emotional connection, that feeling of total immersion in the music and it seems like the performer is right there in your living room playing just for you, then you know you have reached the pinnacle. Regardless of all the other stuff. But I think the question David is really asking is: What aspects of the reproduced sound seem to be most important in creating that emotional connection for you?

I would state that the "feelings" are as much a creation of the hardware/software system as is the sound. Though admittedly created in the brain, the external stimuli cause reactions (neurotransmitters?) that create the emotional connection to the music.

If I had to pick subjective measures for creating those feelings it would be in order:

1. Accurate tonal balance-- I'll never be able to suspend my disbelief if instruments/voices don't sound tonally correct.

2. Dynamics-- especially microdynamics, those subtle little aspects of sound that trick the mind into belief. I'd give up larger swings to get this right.

3. Soundstaging/Imaging-- it must be stable above all else, I've yet to hear a cello or bass wandering across the stage

4. Rhythmic cohesion-- drive, PRaT, or whatever you want to call it, every musical genre has a rhythmic component that needs to be "right."

5. Continuousness-- I love HP's use of this to describe audio equipment. Last week I heard a cellist and piano (Schumann's Adagio/Allegro, Bach's Cello Suite #1, Liszt: Funérailles and Chopin's Barcarolle) in a small room in a library and the sound was lovely, pure and continuous, not disjointed or fragmented. This is very important!

We've all heard systems that on paper should be great, but in reality leave us, at best, cold, and at worst, running from the room screaming:ROFL: