"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
I think Axel is right in that about some speakers unnaturalness of certain details (electronic, staticky, far from true tone) that may contribute to 'frightening' effect.

But I don't think the time, phase, pulse alignment is the cause. IMO, like others have said the time, phase, pulse alignment speakers are one of the best types around capable (when fed with right electronics) of producing life-like natural sounds that gives you great illusion of you being 'there'. That is why I am still sticking with Dunlavy Vs for years. I have heard Vandy, Thiels and they also do superbjob in reproduction. But Same speakers I have heard with less than stellar electronics/source and produce unnatural sounds. I think the reverse is true also. These stellar electronics played back on these so called modern (exotic material tweeters, fancy shaped cabinets, overly tuned rooms and $$$$$ tag) sound similar results.

IMO, The Dunlavys ( and other time,phase,pulse alignment designs without fancy tweeters) reproduce what is fed. So in this it comes down to what is upstream of these speakers- electronics, source quality, recording, power and a room to certain extent).
Frightening is good when it is in recording and these speakers reproduce this when called for. Relaxing is also good when it is called for. Unnatural frightening and relaxing sound is what I would have a problem with also.

So in other words, Axel, your heart is in right place, but you are pointing to wrong reason (or shall I say* w/ all due respect* barking up the wrong tree ;-))
"So you take a recording you know and THEN go listen to this on a system such as I'm on about and see what happens."

With my current system, I can't think of any recordings that I have that are inherently "frightening" merely as a result of the way they are recorded. That has not always been the case though with some prior incarnations.

Artificial sounding? Yes. Less than perfect? For sure.

But IMHO, a recording is what it is. Most you care about are listenable I find once you accept the fact that some are inherently very good and some are way less than perfect or what you might like them to be.

No reason to listen to bad music on a bad recording now though is there?

With good music however, I find the recording seldom is a show stopper for me, unless the record, tape, CD or whatever is physically defective or damapged in some way.

Of course, also, it is not necessarily easy or cheap to assemble a system that is pleasing with most recordings.

Also, in the spirit of Mr T., I agree some might find an inherently poor, artificial or even mildly deficient recording to be "frightening" and some not since "frighten" describes an emotional reaction that will vary greatly from person to person.
How about "pleasing" sound quality?

For me I might listen to 10 different systems that all sound different yet find each one "pleasing".

Bottom line for me is if it sounds "pleasing" to me I like it enough that I am anxious to spend time listening to it as opposed to having to disregard "fright" and force myself to listen.
Howdy,
McKillRoy is watching... There are some really good contributions, I think. Not even the usual sort of bickering :-)

Folks are loosening up and let it flow, that's really good because music and what reproduces music is a lot about that.

We are of course still essentially talking about sound Quality.
Quality of reproduction, also of the software that makes it do what ever it is.

There was some questioning of sw quality itself, and how that plays into it all. So let me give you a recording (CD, so sorry) Cassandra Wilson "Blue Light 'Til Dawn"
Any hands showing who has not listened to that? ------ can't see any.
Any hands showing who does not own it? ----- well, a few here and there.
But I'm sure we know all about it, so I’m not being too esoteric here, great.

Now, would that recording be able to unsettle you?
(Frighten is a bit strong I guess, but you get the idea...)

Will it be possibly boring? (hell, it surely ain't everyone’s taste in music, or?)

Now, to tell you my take.
I used to find it kind of ODD, pretty resolved (what do I know, using 961 Burmester), but all in all actually never managed to listen through the hole piece in one session, if I ever did. My apologies to you who just love it to bits, not me, but that's not the point I'm getting at.

So lately some changes have been implemented to my crossover, that thing that does this 'alignment' I keep grinding on.
Now it gets very close to be unsettling, I'm not joking please!
There is constantly 'stuff' going on there, it starts slowly but surely work me up.
I don't think Dave Brubeck "Time Out" will do that, neither "Jazz at the Pawn Shop"
Yeah, I mention these 'cause everybody and his cousin knows these.

That would make it a shut and closed case for Nilthepill's well perceived input.

Even that 1st order stuff, most nobody got into.
Why, because my box is 2nd order (Linkwitz-Riley).... over-engineered, yes?!
So, go change some components and get spooked?!

You tell me. Right now it looks like I’m on my next learning curve here.

Now I go have a smoke and think about what happening here.
It sucks to be wrong... but I guess that's what learning is all about.

Thanks for sharing,
Axel