Who's Heard the Dutch & Dutch Speakers

[Strictly Stereo]

The acoustic properties of a concert hall are very different from those of a living room. You generally don’t have to worry about modal resonances at all and early reflections are only an issue in the cheap seats.

A typical domestic room could reasonably be described as a source of distortion.

 

[firedog]

I am not sure that I would call room interaction a distortion. It is, after all, how we naturally hear things. Having said that, it is a matter of taste (or dogma?) as to how much room interaction is a good thing. If we want no room interaction than we need to listen to speakers in an anechoic chamber or outdoors. If we want maximum interaction than stick them in the bathroom! Both will sound unnatural to our ears but one will be better for analysis.

Sorry, sitting in a small space with walls and having relatively loud sound coming from boxes isn't anything like how we naturally hear things and isn't the environment our hearing was designed for. The very fact that stereo can trick us into thinking we are hearing something 3 dimensional and sort of natural in this situation proves that it isn't a "natural" listening situation at all.

No one is talking about having NO room interaction as in an anechoic chamber or the opposite - you've setup a straw man argument here.

The simple fact is that about 99% of setups have some excessive room interaction. Pretty much every system shows this when measured. The better setups have a relatively small amount of it, but still too much. But even the moderately excessive room interaction of the better systems is what we are often used to hearing and so have falsely defined as "natural". Even the best quality of drivers and cabinet can't save you from the added distortion (and yes it is a type of distortion) you are hearing in this situation, as this distortion is not sourced in the playback equipment itself.

Setups like the D&D reduce the excessive room interaction to a minimum and actually sound more natural - for a given set of drivers and cabinets. That's why they seem odd sounding at first - until your brain relaxes and lets you hear the clarity and lack of room induced "fuzz".

I imagine there are listeners who get great enjoyment from listening to the added 20 decibels of mistimed 40hz bass notes the room node in their listening room adds to the bass in the playback they hear. That doesn't mean they aren't listening to unnatural room induced distortion/fuzz.

Of course no one setup is best for everyone and there are different tastes. I'm sure there are those who would hear a perfectly setup pair of 8cs and still not like them, because they don't like some aspect of the tone, detail reproduction, etc. of the speaker itself as compared to a different speaker/setup. That's fine and that's taste, which isn't really something to be argued about.

 

[zekezebra]

Of course, and I know this is an old chestnut that's been bandied around many times, a lot of modern recordings have been "tuned" to the lowest common denominator, cheap earbuds or car radios. Then hearing everything on the recording can be quite an unpleasant experience

 

[camverton]

I imagine there are listeners who get great enjoyment from listening to the added 20 decibels of mistimed 40hz bass notes the room node in their listening room adds to the bass in the playback they hear. That doesn't mean they aren't listening to unnatural room induced distortion/fuzz

Hi Firedog. I take it that you are an owner of 8Cs; how long have you had them? Which speakers are you comparing them with and did you use any DSP with them? Please be clear that I am not saying that they aren’t great speakers, particularly for some genres more than others. I take your point about bass problems in a room but the 8Cs use EQ of the frequency response to deal with that in the same way that DSP software does. I certainly don’t like ‘one note’ boomy bass and use DSP to control it. Having said that, below 100 Hz I preferred the 8C, but not above that, mind you my speakers are the baby of the range and bass isn’t their forte.

My comments are based on comparing 8Cs and MBLs in the same room for about ten days. I suspect that few have actually done this so will have to use their imagination to really appreciate where I am coming from! I share Lee’s frustration that many have commented on the 8C without actually hearing them. It’s in the region above the bass that I found the 8Cs relatively unnatural for acoustic chamber music in that I couldn’t shift the impression that I was listening to a a very clear “aural picture” of the “recording” at the end of the room, as opposed to the illusion that I was listening to real performers playing real instruments in front of me with the MBLs. I think that this was because the 8Cs didn’t make enough use of the room, although curiously, whilst clearly cardioid in the horizontal plane they appear to be less so in the vertical plane so ceiling and floor reflections are still present.

As to whether the room adds distortion; well, technically I suppose it alters the sound so does. In practical terms, however, because we are used to the influence of a room when hearing sounds such as people speaking, the excessive reduction of that influence can create an unrealistic effect. Subjectively, which sounds the one that is a distortion of how we naturally hear sound? It is a case of balancing factors to give the result that works the best for us as individuals. Personally, I want the most convincing illusion of the original event; I’ll leave analysis of the recording to the engineers, or as a visitor who attends many concerts pointed out, the 8Cs are very impressive but the MBLs sounded musical.

One thing I will say, and that is that the 8Cs are much better than most conventional box speakers I have owned (not owned ATCs though) and if you prefer boxes to dipoles and omnis ,having heard both in your room, than they are worth an audition.

Pays yer money takes yer choice.

 

[camverton]

Of course, and I know this is an old chestnut that's been bandied around many times, a lot of modern recordings have been "tuned" to the lowest common denominator, cheap earbuds or car radios. Then hearing everything on the recording can be quite an unpleasant experience

That’s very true. I’m thankful that such practices haven’t spread to the world of recording classical music.

I used to think that a really good system would work well with all genres of music. After playing with cardioid and omnis in the same room I no longer think that.

 

[camverton]

Of course, and I know this is an old chestnut that's been bandied around many times, a lot of modern recordings have been "tuned" to the lowest common denominator, cheap earbuds or car radios. Then hearing everything on the recording can be quite an unpleasant experience

That’s very true. I’m thankful that such practices haven’t spread to the world of recording classical music.

I used to think that a really good system would work well with all genres of music. After playing with cardioid and omnis in the same room I no longer think that.

 

[firedog]

Hi Firedog. I take it that you are an owner of 8Cs; how long have you had them? Which speakers are you comparing them with and did you use any DSP with them? Please be clear that I am not saying that they aren’t great speakers, particularly for some genres more than others. I take your point about bass problems in a room but the 8Cs use EQ of the frequency response to deal with that in the same way that DSP software does. I certainly don’t like ‘one note’ boomy bass and use DSP to control it. Having said that, below 100 Hz I preferred the 8C, but not above that, mind you my speakers are the baby of the range and bass isn’t their forte.

My comments are based on comparing 8Cs and MBLs in the same room for about ten days. I suspect that few have actually done this so will have to use their imagination to really appreciate where I am coming from! I share Lee’s frustration that many have commented on the 8C without actually hearing them. It’s in the region above the bass that I found the 8Cs relatively unnatural for acoustic chamber music in that I couldn’t shift the impression that I was listening to a a very clear “aural picture” of the “recording” at the end of the room, as opposed to the illusion that I was listening to real performers playing real instruments in front of me with the MBLs. I think that this was because the 8Cs didn’t make enough use of the room, although curiously, whilst clearly cardioid in the horizontal plane they appear to be less so in the vertical plane so ceiling and floor reflections are still present.

As to whether the room adds distortion; well, technically I suppose it alters the sound so does. In practical terms, however, because we are used to the influence of a room when hearing sounds such as people speaking, the excessive reduction of that influence can create an unrealistic effect. Subjectively, which sounds the one that is a distortion of how we naturally hear sound? It is a case of balancing factors to give the result that works the best for us as individuals. Personally, I want the most convincing illusion of the original event; I’ll leave analysis of the recording to the engineers, or as a visitor who attends many concerts pointed out, the 8Cs are very impressive but the MBLs sounded musical.

One thing I will say, and that is that the 8Cs are much better than most conventional box speakers I have owned (not owned ATCs though) and if you prefer boxes to dipoles and omnis ,having heard both in your room, than they are worth an audition.

Pays yer money takes yer choice.

No, actually I'm an owner of Kii Three's, but for purposes of what I'm talking about the same points would apply - I wasn't trying to make a specific point about the 8c's but speaker room interaction in general. It would also apply to a conventional speaker setup where I'd claim almost all of them would benefit from the use of DSP in the signal to correct timing errors of the different speaker drivers so all the sound arrives at the ear at the same time and probably also a little room correction - at least for low frequencies.

Again, I can't argue with your comments on the "aural picture" you didn't like when listening to the 8c's, but I'm not at all convinced that what you didn't like had anything specifically to do with their special cardoid propagation, and wasn't more just a matter of taste regarding the speakers and their sound, that had little to do with their special tech. I had a similar reaction listening to a dealer demo of a 6 figure system using the Magico stand mounted speakers. I much preferred a pair of Devore speakers in the same setup that cost about 1/5 of the amount of the Magico's - because I thought they sounded more like the real thing (both are conventional box-cone speaker design). Lots of people would think I'm crazy and say the Magico is much more accurate and detailed, with "precise" imaging. I thought it produced a sound picture of instruments playing at the same time, but separately, as opposed to a group of musicians playing "together", that I heard with the Devore.

In other words, one person's accurate and realistic sounding is another person"s too analytical and unrealistic - even when comparing speakers using the same type of technology. I'd still say that a speaker like the 8c is maximizing the abilities of the components it's made from, as to how those same components would sound if used in a conventional speaker. My guess would be that you probably wouldn't like a conventional speaker based on those same 8c components, either.

 

[Purité Audio]

I suppose where one positions oneself along the Hi-Fidelity spectrum is one of the fundamental Hi-Fi questions.
Whether one simply wants to hear the recording reproduced as closely as possible to the artists intention or whether one prefers to create a version to taste.
Ultimately that is a personal decision.
Keith

 

[camverton]

Thanks firedog, interesting points.

When I tried the 8Cs against the baby MBLs there were two aspects of the sound that were obviously different. The first was that there was greater resolution with the 8Cs particularly in the bass. I suspect the cardioid design along with DSP optimised to the drivers helped with this and if hearing every detail in the recording was my priority (as I thought it was) then I would be listening to 8Cs now doubtless delivered and installed by the highly recommended Lee.

What I hadn’t bargained for was the collapse in the sense of space and I have come to the conclusion that I am prepared to sacrifice some resolution to keep that sense of space. It would be interesting to hear MBLs further up the range, although as they use the same mid and high units I’d guess that any improvement would be below 600 Hz. In terms of giving that sense of space my experience puts the 8Cs at one end of the spectrum, going through conventional boxes to dipoles and then omnis. From that I put the sense of space down to the type of speaker design, although different models of the same type will vary. I am basing this on having owned, and dare I say it, measured six electrostatics, umpteen box type speakers and ten days with the 8C in comparison with my resident omni. Having heard the extremes of design philosophy I also came to the conclusion that, to my ears, what works best for rock and pop (8Cs) doesn’t work best for small acoustic ensembles (MBLs).

My ears, not to mention musical tastes, may not be mainstream. All I am saying is that before blowing 10k on speakers it is worth trying lots of different approaches to design. It is then that all the theories of what is or not distortion, coloration pale into insignificance compared with what simply sounds right.

 

[camverton]

I suppose where one positions oneself along the Hi-Fidelity spectrum is one of the fundamental Hi-Fi questions.
Whether one simply wants to hear the recording reproduced as closely as possible to the artists intention or whether one prefers to create a version to taste.
Ultimately that is a personal decision.
Keith

Rather more carefully and tactfully written than some of your sales spiel!

It is a matter of opinion which most closely reproduces the artists intention, and not the dogma of a dealer pimping up his wares on the discussion part of a forum. As to which speaker best reproduces the artists intention that can also vary according to genre and artist. Personally I want to hear, as close as is practical, what the artist sounds like at the original event. That is my concept of “real” fidelity.

 

[Purité Audio]

The only artefact we have is the record/Cd/file Malcolm that is the artists intent, live music is something else entirely.
Keith

 

[Andrew C!]

It’s really interesting that some want to hear the artist as intended. That kind of thing is instantly affected by so many factors before it ends up in our living room... eg, choice of microphones, and their positioning, choice of venue, choice of engineer, choice of recording equipment etc etc.

It is what it is, a hobby of choices and options...

 

[firedog]

Thanks firedog, interesting points.

When I tried the 8Cs against the baby MBLs there were two aspects of the sound that were obviously different. The first was that there was greater resolution with the 8Cs particularly in the bass. I suspect the cardioid design along with DSP optimised to the drivers helped with this and if hearing every detail in the recording was my priority (as I thought it was) then I would be listening to 8Cs now doubtless delivered and installed by the highly recommended Lee.

What I hadn’t bargained for was the collapse in the sense of space and I have come to the conclusion that I am prepared to sacrifice some resolution to keep that sense of space. It would be interesting to hear MBLs further up the range, although as they use the same mid and high units I’d guess that any improvement would be below 600 Hz. In terms of giving that sense of space my experience puts the 8Cs at one end of the spectrum, going through conventional boxes to dipoles and then omnis. From that I put the sense of space down to the type of speaker design, although different models of the same type will vary. I am basing this on having owned, and dare I say it, measured six electrostatics, umpteen box type speakers and ten days with the 8C in comparison with my resident omni. Having heard the extremes of design philosophy I also came to the conclusion that, to my ears, what works best for rock and pop (8Cs) doesn’t work best for small acoustic ensembles (MBLs).

My ears, not to mention musical tastes, may not be mainstream. All I am saying is that before blowing 10k on speakers it is worth trying lots of different approaches to design. It is then that all the theories of what is or not distortion, coloration pale into insignificance compared with what simply sounds right.

Well it sounds like you are experienced enough to know what you like, and that’s important. What’s interesting is how in this hobby we can hear the same thing in terms of the physical reproduction, but react to it or perceive it totally differently.
I know that what sounds right to me, even very natural and real, doesn’t sound that way to everyone else. And I’ve heard lots of equipment that some people think is fantastic, and found it to be at best pretty good, but nothing special and not something I’d want.
It’s one of the reasons I still try to work with good dealers when I can. The better ones will help you figure out what sounds good to you and how they can get you close to that result. They don’t try to give everyone the same solutions and push specific items at them.

 

[AndyU]

The only artefact we have is the record/Cd/file Malcolm that is the artists intent, live music is something else entirely.
Keith

You have no idea what the artists intent is. No artist on the planet has ever said "I intend my music to be listened to on speakers that Purite Audio sell". I doubt most artists have ever heard of any of the speakers you sell or we all use. Most artists are probably more than happy that their music is listened to on in-ear headphones and a mobile phone, and music is nowadays far more likely to be created for such devices than anything else. Artists will listen to their own stuff on a huge variety of equipment with nothing recognizable I’m common. It is a preposterous conceit to imply that you are selling stuff that artists intend their audience to listen through. I had a dem of the 8cs the other week and was disappointed, though less so than when I heard the Kiis. I rather doubt that any of the classical artists whose music I listened to through them intended their music to sound like it did.

Edited to add: Actually, Dr Dre probably quite happy you listen to his stuff on Beats cans.

 

[Purité Audio]

Presumably the disc/file released is the artists intention, there is nothing else.
Personally I just want to hear that file reproduced as faithfully as possible, mixing/mastering engineers have always understood the importance of a good loudspeaker in a benign room and go to great lengths to achieve this hence soffit mounted loudspeakers in a fully treated room, for example the ATCs at British Grove.
Keith

 

[AndyU]

Presumably the disc/file released is the artists intention, there is nothing else.
Personally I just want to hear that file reproduced as faithfully as possible, mixing/mastering engineers have always understood the importance of a good loudspeaker in a benign room and go to great lengths to achieve this hence soffit mounted loudspeakers in a fully treated room, for example the ATCs at British Grove.
Keith

Indeed. I’d probably be quite happy with the British Grove room too, but there’s no way you can say that any more than a small proportion of musicians would share that taste. What do you think Dr Dre has at home? John Eliot Gardiner? Lionel Louecke? And in the studio? And mastering is usually done somewhere different from recording in any case, so there’s another set of intentions. I suspect most mastering engineers intend their masters to sound good on the radio, or in the car, or through headphones, and that’s what they use their fancy soffit mounted speakers to achieve, augmented often by ghastly NS10s on the console, if they still have one. You only have to go to gearslutz to hear people passionately arguing the merits of wildly different loudspeakers in incredibly varied studio acoustics to realise there is no one intention.

 

[camverton]

The only artefact we have is the record/Cd/file Malcolm that is the artists intent, live music is something else entirely.
Keith

I once asked what music you listened to, but you didn’t, as so often, reply. If you tell us what you listen to than I might be able to understand why you keep making the same point, which whilst partially valid for some genres isn’t valid for all. As for the artist’s intent I am not a mind reader.

The recording is but one stage of the chain in much of the music I listen to. It starts off with either an actual live event or something made to replicate a live event. It ends up in my dear little brain. My brain wants to be fooled into thinking it is hearing the original event. It is surprising how effective that is with a decent recording and a hifi system that convinces me.

tl;dr I want to sit in my home and enjoy, as near as possible, the same experience as if listening to live music.

Is that so very difficult to understand? You are obviously not stupid so what is your motive in carrying on with the dogma of the recording being the only thing we have?
For classical listeners the original event is what we have as a reference, and at the other end how closely we replicate that in the home as the objective.

 

[Purité Audio]

Indeed. I’d probably be quite happy with the British Grove room too, but there’s no way you can say that any more than a small proportion of musicians would share that taste. What do you think Dr Dre has at home? John Eliot Gardiner? Lionel Louecke? And in the studio? And mastering is usually done somewhere different from recording in any case, so there’s another set of intentions. I suspect most mastering engineers intend their masters to sound good on the radio, or in the car, or through headphones, and that’s what they use their fancy soffit mounted speakers to achieve, augmented often by ghastly NS10s on the console, if they still have one. You only have to go to gearslutz to hear people passionately arguing the merits of wildly different loudspeakers in incredibly varied studio acoustics to realise there is no one intention.

Music is art, it’s reproduction is science, ask yourself why traditional loudspeakers sound at their best soffit mounted and in a completely treated room.
@ Malcolm, I listen to everything, currently Lucia Popp, without wishing to labour the point there is only the recording, if the natural acoustic has been captured I wish to hear it, I don’t want homogenised reproduction .
Keith

 

[camverton]

Lucia Popp; the man has taste!

I’ve no idea what homogenised reproduction is! Something out of Carry on Audio Dealer perhaps, but I expect Floyd Toole has measured it although personally I prefer the wit and wisdom of Keith Floyd!

 

[mattgbell]

Music is art, it’s reproduction is science

Music is art, but its recording, production, mastering etc involve technology, engineering and so on. So that by the time you put the shiny disk in the player (or whatever) it's already quite a distance from the art (or intention) of the artists. The contents of the digital file already comprise a whole load of unnatural artifice. With the vast majority of pop/rock music the artificial nature of the recording is obvious and becomes even more obvious (and often very off-putting) the more accurate the replay system is.

And don't get me started on stereo ...