"Frightening" or "Relaxing" sound quality?


What do I mean by that?
Not that I wish to start a new controversy --- knowing some of the usual contributors, it may not be entirely avoidable, so let’s see what gives.

Following some of the threads on the –ultimate- ‘phase-coherent’, 'time-coherent' or yet better, both, 1st order up to steep slopes, an so on, cross-over opinions, I have these notions. So let me explain.

One quite well known ‘maverick’ (done some picking on some other well known reviewer, posting it on his site...), somewhere he states: a good speaker must have the ability 'to frighten you' --- his words, and I can see/hear what he means, at least I think so.

Some other dealer in Wilson’s marvellous products (he's around my place), tells me he can only listen for about ½ hour than he is 'exhausted' --- i.e. too intense to do any longer listening…

Nobody is talking about ‘listening fatigue’ actually, it is more an emotional fatigue, as far as I get it.

Now me, I go to a life orchestra listening and emerge pretty well ‘up-lifted’, never had any fatigue (maybe my bottom, when it got a bit too lengthy) never mind emotional fatigue! Gimme Mahler, Stravinsky, Mussorgsky, heavy (classical) metal, whow --- upliftment. Never occur to me run away, get uneasy, GET FRIGHTENED!

I clearly get ‘emotional fatigue’ listening to some types of speakers!
What were they?
I think they had one thing in common: They all where, in some way, VERY realistic, but they also had something else in common, --- they did not, as it seems, stick too well to a reasonably flat amplitude response… ah ha.

What this design regimen seems to produce during listening to keep on making you jump? Apparently always something rather unexpected in happening! Now we do also know what makes us (as humans) ‘jump’: it is some unexpected ‘something’ coming ‘out of the bush’ a snapping branch, some sort of VERY REAL sound, that does not quite go along with the general set of the acoustic environment.

Now take some ‘benign, dumb’ kind of speaker, it has so little in REALISTIC sound to offer, it just can’t frighten you. You (your instinct, subconscious) just don’t ‘buy’ into it.
Now take a VERY realistic sound-producer (the ones that can make you jump) and mess with the amplitude response, what you are getting is this on the edge of your seat reaction. The VERY opposite of what a lot of music has as its intention. (Not like AV ‘Apocalypse now’ kind of chopper going to attack you from any old angle, top, behind, etc.)

Lastly, has this something to do with why lots of folks perhaps shy away from these sort of designs?
I have listened to my share and I shy away, because as REAL everything seems to be in the reproduction, it keeps me in a state of inner tension, apprehension --- even listening to some Mozart Chamber music, as there is ALWAYS something very REAL, but somehow unsettling going on.

It might just explain why some of these designs don’t ‘cut the mustard’ and not survive in the long run. Unless, and open to opinion, that we are (most of us anyway) so messed up and transistor-radio-sound-corrupted that we seem ‘unworthy of these ‘superior’ audio-designs.
I honestly don’t think so, but you may have it otherwise, as they say YMMV.

I thought it is of value to bring this up, since it does not ever seem to be part of any of the more ‘technical’ discussions ---- the human ‘fright/flight’ element in ignoring proper FLAT amplitude response in favour of minimal insertion losses, or proper impedance compensation, notch filtering, et al, just so to obtain this form of stressful realism.

It might be also something to do with age, a much younger listener (in my experience) likes to be stirred up, and emotionally knocked all over the place ---- listening to Baroque music like bungee jumping?!
Maybe.
It be interesting to hear if it is just my form of ‘over-sensitiveness’ that brings forth this subject.
Best,
Axel
axelwahl
Nope, haven;t heard the "latest and greatest".

Latest for sure.

Greatest? Technical improvements on paper seemingly but I haven't heard them so I can't offer an opinion. It's always a matter of opinion I suppose in any case.

Supposedly more efficient and improved in some ways according to the info released on the OHM site.
.
That's about as much as I know about the new gen drivers.

Here is what is said about the new drivers on the OHm site:

"NextGen Walsh Driver Available

The new Walsh 5000 driver is in production! This is the Next Generation of the Walsh 5-S3 driver and can be used to upgrade Ohm Fs as well as the Walsh 4,
Walsh 5 and Walsh 300 families of speakers.

What is the difference? Physically: almost everything changed except the perforated metal can and the cloth dome super tweeter. The main inverted driver has a new cast chassis, new neodymium magnet structure, new voice coil, new cone, and new surround (not foam anymore). Sonically: evolutionary - not revolutionary - changes. You'll enjoy the same super wide sweet-sweep, the same deep, clean bass (mostly cabinet dependent) and the same extended, sweet treble to beyond 20,000 Hz (mostly super-tweeter dependent). You still have the controls to match the speaker to your listening room. The improvements include slightly higher sensitivity to reduce the demand from your amplifier, longer linear excursion for lower distortion, smoother mids for more intelligible, lifelike voices and better micro-dynamics for finer inner details with more precise imaging. All these audible changes can be heard during our 120-Day Home Trial."
Hi,
I think we are getting something here, now we are talking about "spooky", very good.

Now spooky can be 'nice' spooky, or 'frightening' spooky, right? You of course one can now argue, that it's in the mind of the listener, and who can disagree.

I was trying to figure, if that is not just ONLY a 'Jungian' kind of over-sensitivity, but a genuine something that is caused by an alignment trade-off. Linearity sacrificed in favour of just getting this 'spooky' quality.

One thing comes to mind here, and that is a 'general' tendency of 'bad' dispersion behaviour in favour of a VERY squeezed sweet-spot with great 'spooky' quality.

So some of it could be due, by not listening in this very narrowly defined sweet-spot i.e. a more casual type of listening?
In this case, every where else we have some very serious comb-filtering going on --- now what is that, other than some serious amplitude roller-coaster?

The all-time unavoidable trade-off, for superior transparency and immediacy?

Like: no roller-coaster no superior transparency, etc?

The answer might really just be: personal preference... but something tells me that's too simple, too relativistic.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

AXEL
I was going to post some thoughts but Atmosphere beat me to the point I was going to try to make. If I understand the theme of this topic this is something that I refer to as the "startle factor". To me this doesn't just refer to amplitude peaks but also full harmonics, speed of the dynamics, and correct timbres. These are the details of the music that I want my system/speakers to render IF they are indeed in the recording.

Axelwahl, I fear you are close to committing the same sin as many others. You are simply imparting your own preferences to what you heard from a certain pair, or pairs, of speakers. We all do it and then argue over what sounds the most "real". What you hear as frightening may make the next guy giggle with delight.

Another thing I was thinking while reading your comments on flat response is which response are you referring to? The anechoic figures published by speaker manufacturers or the in room response?

Hi Dan_ed

let's see..
>>> These are the details of the music that I want my system/speakers to render --IF-- they are indeed in the recording.<<<

You put it right there: IF! --- they are indeed in the recording.
I concede they ARE NOT, and are made-up by an amplitude response issue.
Certain parts get over- and others under-cooked ---- but not necessarily, immediately or grossly obvious.
It turns out comb-filtering is not THAT obvious as I understand, else there'd be fewer of these type of alignments about.

>>> The anechoic figures published by speaker manufacturers or the in room response? <<<

To keep it quite short: anechoic figures.

However, the worse your dispersion pattern, the smaller your sweet-spot, the WORSE your in-room response, the more tricky to get "acceptable" in-room results.
Unless you are "hardened" to this kind of deviation... e.g. do not negatively respond.

Thank you for your valuable input,
Axel
Axe, Perhaps we a language problem here, both receptively and expressively.