"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
Axel,

I find it interesting, what your speaker designer has to say about "unpleasantness", when massed instruments are being played. Possibly he has a point. I have a hunch why this could indeed often be the case. On the other hand I don't want to start the old dogfights between analog and digital afficionados here again, because that usually leads to nowhere, except for abuse and bad feelings. Let me state thisis here quite clearly. I love and need both media. But....just for my ears and well being, big orchestral classical music leaves me stone cold on digital, there is too much missing in subtle information. It does not frighten me, but it bores and annoys me, makes me nervous. It is too far away from what I experience at concert. Whereas for Jazz, small combos, voices, some, not all chamber music I prefer digital over analog. It simply has more presence and "reality". Why not ask you speaker-man, if he also listens to analog and if he experiences the same thing there. If so, I would suggest, that his speakers are at fault.
This, by the way has nothing to do with what Timtim had to say. I agree with him, he follows the same line as I set out in an earlier post here.
Cheers,
Detlof
Oh boy.

Back to blaming the time alignment and phase alignment game again. Who is this speaker-designer-man of yours that says that?
I am with Timtim for possible cause- the cross over design, the speaker quality itself and or most like the upstream components.
The 300B comment proves that you don't know what you are talking about.

I thought you said you started learning and getting it and now you are back to square one.
Hi Atmasphere
having learned a lesson from Jeff Roland?
I think you have a point not doing both. Look at Krell, I think he is trying this again, and the results are at least questionable to some folks... (include me).
I do not know "M-derived crossovers" have you some more explanation on this?
Also having looked at a Dunlavy XO first-order, yes? If that is correct, it beats a 4-order Revel in number of components!? This would disprove the 1st-order 'story' about minimal insertion losses, I say. (But that is just by the by)
Thanks,
Axel
Hi Detlof
to answer your questions the man is listens to both, digital and analogue. (and prefers analogue, as I do also)
His analogue is a Transrotor Z3, with the Transfig. Orpheus (L), and a Allen Wright phono/pre-amp with a special stepped attenuator, plus pass monos, etc.
CD drive with a Cullen modded PS Audio DL III.
Not a bad front end I think, in answer to some other questions re. front-end quality and influence on the sound. I mean this now 101 audio, but so why not.

As for the Nilthepill take, ---- 300B comment? Blaming? All due to upstream components? not learning my lesson?
I don't quite get your idea for all this negative talk. If it serves you, if it gets you relieve, then be our guest :-)

Axel
Axel,
Yes, your speaker-man's frontend isn't bad, as you say. But it is not SOTA either. Whatever, since he listens to analogue and even seems to prefer it, I really don't know what he is talking about regarding massed strings, because I don't share his sentiments but at the same time am VERY finicky especially about the rendition of massed strings in big orchestral classical music. Perhaps you could ask him what especially sounds wrong to his ears and we could try to pinpoint the "heart of evil".
Cheers,
D