Solving the "complex music problem"?


I have noticed that, regardless of the system, simple music (i.e. music with only a few sounds at the same time, such as a solo instrument) sounds way better than what I'll call here "complex music", meaning music like symphony that has a lot of instruments all playing different sounds at the same time. I'm assuming that this is an inherent problem for audio equipment. In a live symphony, you might have, say, 15 different unique instruments (i.e. counting all the violins as 1 unique instrument), each of which is vibrating in a different way; but in a speaker, each driver might be trying to reproduce 10 of those sounds at the same time. So each driver is a single physical object trying to vibrate in 10 different ways at the same time. The result is that the music sounds muddy, all the different parts blend together and you lose a lot of the detail.

I have a number of questions about this that I'm hoping all you experts can help me with.

1. Is there an established name or term for this issue? 

2. Do you think my diagnosis of the problem above is correct? Or is something else going on?

3. Although this is always a problem, it's a much bigger problem on some systems than others. Are there some types of components, or some brands, that are particularly good (or bad) when it comes to this issue?

4. To what extent is this issue related to the components you have as compared to speaker placement and room acoustics?

5. To me, this is a huge issue. But I don't see it discussed all that often. Why do you think that is? Or, perhaps, it is being discussed all the time, but people are using a term I don't recognize? (hence question 1).  

 

Full disclosure, I asked a related question under the heading "need amp recommendations for more separation of instruments" and got a lot of super helpful responses. I'm very grateful to everyone who took the time to respond there. That discussion was focused on a solution to my particular problem. Here I'm hoping to have a more general discussion of the issue. I know it's bad form to post the same question twice, but in my mind, this is a significantly different question. Thanks.

ahuvia

resolving source + muddy amp = audio that is less detailed

resolving source + transparent amp = audio that sounds realistic

resolving source + transparent amp + resolving transducer (s)= audio nirvana

 

In terms of importance, it goes like this:

1) Transducer(s) (headphones or speakers)

2) Amplifier (solid-state or tube)

3) Source component (DAC, CD player, record player etc.)

 

Because the headphones or speakers is the final point of contact beween you the total sum of your system, how resolving they are will greatly influence what you hear.

A bad amplifier (that is not audibly transparent or a wire-with-gain, in other words colored-sounding), will limit the full potential of your source component(s) and headphones/speakers.

You could have an incredibly detailed DAC, CD player etc. that provides the true analog-sound (like real life) sound of digital, or even top-notch vinyl. But if the sum of all parts are not aligned, it will be like looking at a beautfiul sight through a foggy window (in terms of what your ears are able to discern and appreciate).

 

Post removed 

I can't figure out how to reply to a specific post. But thanks all for your input.

@ahuvia 

I can't figure out how to reply to a specific post. But thanks all for your input.

I just copy and paste what I am replying to and link the member who posted

A lot of good responses already. I agree with getting closer to the speakers or using more directional speakers and/or room treatments, and using active crossovers with steep slopes and more drivers, or adding more speakers and listening to multi-channel music such as Atmos as all good ways to help clarify complex music and provide better separation. A very smooth broadband frequency response at the listening position is also very important. And hugely important, at least for me, is anything you can do to improve the apparent width and clarity of the stereo soundstage. Having different sounds come from very distinctly different apparent directions helps abundantly. That’s where the multi-channel Atmos recordings can really help if done well. Crosstalk elimination methods really help for 2 channel recordings. A divider wall between the speakers is a fantastic improvement in my opinion compared to any 2 channel setup with both speakers playing into both ears at the same time. Polk and Carver came up with analog methods of electronically reducing crosstalk. They work to varying degrees. I’ve tried both. A simple setup I’ve been experimenting with for a few months now that I like much better uses 3 speakers in a close array - about 1 foot apart center to center. It requires matrixing the signal into L-R, L+R, and R-L, which is the kind of stuff Hafler was playing with a long time ago. The interesting thing about putting this array of speakers close together and in front of you is that it provides some pretty effective crosstalk elimination without sounding at all processed, and produces an excellent sound stage which is very good at separating out complex music. I find myself no longer seeking out simpler recordings because I need some relief. The simple stuff sounds great as usual but the complex stuff is not falling apart either, so I’ve been focusing on it, practically looking for something that will overwhelm the setup or make me pine to go back to a traditional 2 speaker setup. At this point I don’t see it happening. The good news is I can run this setup with a standard 2 channel system. I just have to matrix the signal and run 2 of the speakers in parallel, with one out of phase of the other. So, the amp will need to be up to the task of running a lower impedance in one channel than the other. One channel runs the center speaker, the other channel runs the two side speakers. So you need an extra speaker and the matrixer. I use my computer to matrix the signals.