XXHighEnd

A part of this would also fall on the FM curves (but much more can be achieved with the curves) but a specific mention about imaging.

Signal depth:
So the other day, while listening to ambient or electronic album (can't remember what it was), noticed something quite interesting. Most people are trying to see singers or played move on stage L/R and are amazed by their experience (Noticed this when I went to hear a pair of speakers made by Musical Affairs (PhyHP) at a local guys plays, this owner could not get enough of this opera singer moving side ways on stage) .

My first experience with depth was with the class D, and Omni/Dipole (which might have been a bit exaggerated). But with the new system the imaging is so precise, you can follow the signal in depth, which was unexpected! With electronic music you can have a signal running around the sound field. Precisely following something front to back or vice versa is an interesting experience!

 Image Height:
so far this has been very satisfactory, can differential excellent vs mediocre recordings. Will add more later.


Image size (*edit- width*):
While imaging is excellent with the Orelos, studio panning can become an issue, or mixing errors. Some times it can just be that this was the best that could come out of the speakers used for post production mixing.
This is from a while ago, but still relevant for imaging
I was listing to Tabula Rasa, Geocentricity
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_Rasā
Mridangam is the instrument
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mridangamd
Other than a piano, image width can be difficult to judge. Mridangam is a horizontal instrument, which I'm intimately familiar with. This is a set of trials with the curves, ofcourse with the NOS-1 (not a), and prior filter, judging horizontal image size. So will have to repeat it some time.

FM curves
Tabula rasa - geocentricity
(1-highest; 2-mid; 3-low)
*Edit* some of my notes
All red ... too wide, right channel bias
All org .... too wide, right channel bias
Org;grn;grn .... About right (maybe a little too wide). Slightly better imaging.
Org;grn;org ..... Still wide, better imaging
Grn;grn;red ...... Realistic size, good imaging
Grn,org,red ..... As above for both
Redx3 (repeat) too wide
Last different l/r channel  FM settings too erratic, better able to float the left channel.
Orang,org,red .... Slightly elongated, better left imaging.

Maybe one of these days I'll get Kavi himself to come over and listen.

Other Orelo owners can add?

VJ

*Edit*
Forgot to add the following
Kavi Alexander is the recording artist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavichandran_Alexander
Recording technique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blumlein_Pair

I've visited Kavi and the place where this was recorded. An Old Church 17th centrury place.

Most of the instruments in stereo reproduction appear as point sources. Symphonies give scale, difficult to judge individual instruments.  Piano can give a sense of scale, but it can never give a sense of size. That was the reason for using mridangam, a horizontal instrument with defined width, and close recording. BTW i'll probably stay away from that recording for a while, after the FM trials  :wacko:

Part -II

Recreation of acoustic space:

While Omnidirectional speakers are masters at this, Orelo is not far behind. In many ways Orelos may be better. Although I haven't done a through investigation (head to head comparison), omnis might "falsely" widen the sound stage. It is fun to have instruments go beyond the boundaries if the speaker, which give one the impression of scale, but intensity wise it cannot match the visceral feel, and hence an incomplete illusion. It is my impression that omnidirectional speakers are excellent for low level non critical listening, in a typical "listening" room. Anything else it requires careful manipulation of the abundant secondary reflections, and power amps, which should be nothing short of a nuclear reactor.

Coming back to Orelos recreation of acoustic space.
Reference album: Stephan Micus/The music of the stones
http://www.amazon.com/Music-Stones-Stephan-Micus/dp/B000025ZXK
This is kind of a experimental album. Music is made by carefully trimmed and honed blocks of Swedish granite. These are cut into cubes, with deep incisions parallel or intersecting in regular interval. Apart from the first number which is music produced by rubbing the stone, the rest are by a mallet which is used to strike the stone. This is recorded in the "Cathedral of Ulm" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulm_Minster) which can give a great sense of acoustic space. The image density from the speakers is strong, leading to great reverberant acoustics.

Another interesting album to try is Sera Una Noche
http://www.marecordings.com/main/product_info.php?products_id=78

Pretty much anything from Water Lilly acoustics.
http://waterlilyacoustics.com/main.htm

BTW, the above albums are just markers for reference, and pretty much any album (at least decently recorded) I've heard so far have worked out just fine.

Thank you for sharig this VJ.


As you can see at least I (or even I) have much to contribute. I guess I work differently for approach were it about the F-M settings. So, for me as the designer of it, I take it for granted that green-green-green should be the normal position/curve, never mind it is not the curve which Mr Fletcher and Munson found out for us human beings.
Still it is so that "by nature" I worked with and the dip and the highs to say orange up to red (Dip) and red (Highs respectively. So what I do today is starting out with green-green-green (flat curve) and will soon notice that something has to change, which highly depends on the music. Often it's the dip to orange first (nore Dip) and later I might set the Highs to orange (more highs). This latter could be a "compensating" matter.

Most of the time I work with "disturbance". So, when I feel things are not right, I will change e.g. like described. This can last for days until something disturbs again, and with the Dip to orange this undoubtedly will be about a too flat sound, or to dull. I now do not set the Highs to red (even more Highs) but undo the Dip (so set to green). Next, in rare occasions I may find the highs too much (too less color in them), but when so, they get back to green (flat).

This looks to be a cyclic happening.

It is very clear though that the Dip being activated takes out the higher frequency ambience of e.g. a full orchestra. This can be a matter of life and death so to speak. Let's say how all gets full with air when the dip is set to green, back from orange. In the end such phenomenon will always be the case, but for some recordings it can be too much of it but hard to describe how (now from the top of my head). Possibly too much sibilant.

Fact is that my cyclic happening mostly last for days for one setting. Meaning : it takes days to run into an album which makes me change the settings (back).
I can also say that only in very rare occasions I change a setting but change it back within a minute. This means that most of the time I guessed right where it needed to go to. And in those rare occasions I guess wrongly, I guess I throw out the album and hunt for another (read : can't be helped).

So see ? I am not looking for the best settings; I look for settings which disturb least and this is quite tolerant (or otherwise how can any setting last for many days, no matter what direction it went).

Imaging itself I never explicitly pay attention to. However, my mentioned "air ambience" is about how all gets more separated. You can call it more accurate. So this changes the image largely, up to the orchestra suddenly "working" while before it wouldn't (get involved etc.). The image will get wider of that, but this is not what I seek. The separation, yes.

That's all. :)
Peter

http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/Mue/mue2003/research/mescobar/thesis/web/Psychoacoustics.htm

The most sensitive region of our ears are from 1,000 to 5,000 Hz.
What does it tell us for music reproduction?

Joachim

Edit: Also interesting to read -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking

From you first link Joachim :

Critical bands also can be explained in another way, when two sounds of equal loudness sounded separately are close together in pitch, their combined loudness when sounded together will be only slightly louder than one of them alone.  They may be said to be in the same critical band where they are competing for the same nerve endings on the basilar membrane of the inner ear.  If the two sounds are widely separated in pitch, the perceived loudness of the combined tones will be considerably greater because they do not overlap on the basilar membrane and compete for the same hair cells.  If the tones are far apart in frequency (not within a critical band), the combined sound may be perceived as twice as loud as one alone.

I can't say that I knew that ...

Thanks,
Peter

"Imaging itself I never explicitly pay attention to. However, my mentioned "air ambience" is about how all gets more separated. You can call it more accurate. So this changes the image largely, up to the orchestra suddenly "working" while before it wouldn't (get involved etc.). The image will get wider of that, but this is not what I seek. The separation, yes."

Peter,

I might have mentioned before, but I'm not sure .....

The auditory system depends on secondary, but slightly delayed reflections to solidify imaging. The "air" as you call it. This however needs to be "carefully" tailored.

VJ

*edit*
Just realized something. The mention about secondary reflections was incomplete, and should be taken with the whole speaker design into consideration (and I should have thought of that before I talked about reflections). And excessive/uncontrolled secondary reflections are actually detrimental to imaging.  And thinking back, for a speaker like the Orelo, minimal reflections might be better for the mids and highs.

Peter,

Coming back to your FM settings.

Been playing a few female jazz albums, and have consistently noticed that FM settings closer to the straight line or the straight line is most preferred. This gives the most realistic playback of the singer. All red makes the singer rather diffuse and larger. This makes me think, the recording engineers are using a particular technique for this type of music?
The overall depth however is less appreciated with this setting, but it may not make a huge difference considering it's a small group playing.

VJ
P.s. Cassandra Wilson might be a different story  :)

Why ? because you are married to her ?
:) :)

Lol!

I would go with lower pitch.

Hi VJ, I've been meaning to contribute to this thread for a while, but just haven't gotten around to doing any meaningful F-M comparisons. I'll rectify this in the next day or two.

For now though, I just use S=2, D=2, H=2 (i.e. all orange), which I feel is a good 'generic' setting that works well for most of the music I've tried.

Back with more soon...

Mani.

Hey Mani,
Would love to hear your thoughts!!
VJ

Okay, now I suddenly have a small contribution ...
But it will be a strange one.

Let's keep in mind what I told before, which comes down to :
I know what the F-M curves do, and all I do is dial-in more air, more freshness when the music concerned can bear it, less harshness when it's the other way around and more of this mere technical approach.

Yesterday I had a different idea and it sprung from all sounding super bad to begin with (for reasons not necessary to explain here) and thought "what the heck, if it sounds so bad that I can try listening to VJ and dial in settings I would not do otherwise".

Well, almost, because I also thought about what was actually bothering me with my current sound and how to get rid of that. Think of too dark and too gray/grey sound without any accuracy as if I was using a D/A converter from 20 years ago.
And then I tried a setting I normally would never even bother to try (because so wrong in my view) ...

My first thinking was to "dip out" the grey sound which plainly comes down to awful. So, Dip to Red. "What can't be heard also can't annoy". At the same time I thought of compensating for the dullness which would emerge and set the Highs also to Red. So, just theory. But before I actually applied it (both at the same time) I also again thought of my older theory how the more high frequency boost can fill in the gaps of lower frequency roughness. So, this roughness I expect to be in this 1K-5K region while I actually would squueze that out with the Dip setting (Red). Not much concistent.

Thus, I now had the largest dip in the 1K-5K region, and the most boost from of 6.5K and up. So see ? this seems contradictionary to me. But with a mood of "what the heck" plus some so-called reasoning (above), I just did it, prepared to throw the lot out of the window anyway.

Yes, one can end up in a stadium that it better be silent than bad sound is thrown at you.

But it didn't turn out to be for the worse. Not at all.

Very first I noticed - and I didn't even pay attention to this topic I am writing in right now, so to speak - was a natural depth. More of it for sure.
Next was the width *plus* separation.
And close after that the way more "bordered" of everything. The more square again (I maybe dialed out lately). All way way better.
And no spur of more darkness I actually expected. I actually loved it.

What I learned from this is that there's actually merit in trying all the (to me) "strange" settings. Let's say that at least this combination (green - red - red) was as consistent as the settings I would think to be consistent from stupid theory and it HAS to spring from how our brain deals with this all.

But VJ, didn't you tell that ...

Sadly it is more complicated;

I certainly don't want to go off topic, but it has to be said :
This will never have worked in Windows 8.
:oops:
So intermezzo : While I once back tried Windows 7 with the NOS1a (only briefly) and thought I noticed a difference, *but* this also was on another PC, today I am forced to use that other PC + Windows 7 because I, say, blew up my Windows 8 machine. Now don't ask me what changed since that brief trial and not being sure, but today the difference is not between day and night, but between heaven and hell in a freezer. First glance : wow, Windows 7 (machine) is so more smooth. I could last a whole evening with that thought and we all agreed.
But it appears to be highly depending on the music played, and already the next day I started to hate it. HATE it. All sounds the same and all sounds too dark and all bass sounds coloured. And when I played the famous drumming recording ... that did it. No NO single way it could ever resemble the drum kit. I even turned it off after 3 minutes because so totally awful.
And AGAIN I can not imagine what's all happening with these stupid OSes, if it is that (can be the PC).
Mind you, this is now sounding so bad that you rather wear ear plugs than listening to it. Not play anything is also a good idea. So :wtf:.
Ending the intermezzo : When in Windows 8 I'd set the Highs to Red (most boost of the highs) all would be hissing.

So ... We can say that at the fifth day of awful sound in Windows 7 - no XXHighEnd dials doing a thing because of the NOS1a eliminating that, I suddenly found that a speaker can do wonders. This *also* tells me how we all will be "able" to perceive all differently (after all) just because of a speaker. And so I imagine that a speaker with a virtual green - red - red setting will hiss me out of the room when Windows 8 is playing (or a PC which incurs for that like mine). And the other way around of course; a speaker with green - green -green will let sound Windows 7 (or that PC) sound like a drag.

I am not exaggerating you know. And possibly the message is that we can get used to that "superb" sound (whatever that really is today and tomorrow) and once we hop back the slightest degree, it will be killing.
If I once heard a 100% live drum kit through my speakers and now this went down to 99%, it is already unlistenable. Something like that. But notice I perceived it like 10%. Or 0%.

More back to the topic :
Yes, those "strange" F-M settings can help a LOT, depending on the situation. With the W7 experience in mind, that apparently (??!?) lacking all the highs in the world - but which to me seems similar to an over-decorated room (too much damping) - boosting those highs (6.5K and up) not only compensates nicely, but it also brings back the imaging we "expect". Like I told : it can become "natural". Don't ask me what natural means, but I guess we all will understand. Not faked. No machines, no robots. But I'm afraid : no overprocessing brain required to perceive all in well fashion.

For me it is a revelation to notice how something which sounds totally awful, actually springs from unbalance in the frequency spectrum and which goes unnoticed in itself. Well, maybe if you are a VJ you will be able to see through the technical merits right away, but this is not "us".
What I additionally learned is that the bandwidth of the F-M settings is highly dependent on external parameters. Hard to explain, but think like "no play room" in Windows 8, while "all possible" in Windows 7 (or the PC's or whatever it is really).
Or (mind you) :
"all possible" in an over-decorated room while "no bandwidth" in a hard room. At least that's how I feel it.

For VJ : Remember the funny thing : A way too dark sound was counteracted with more darkness because of the Red Dip. Next though *this* was counteracted with the way more high frequencies. Result : not dark at all.
Later I will try this with my Windows 8 machine (with the expectation that it can't work).

Peter

Maybe OT, but in reaction to your previous post:

Not even having a Orelo with FM settings, I completely recognize the soundattributes you discribe about Windows 7. Never thought it had anything to do with the OS.

I've been trying to 'fix' this darkness with my power cables stuff and XX settings. I've come a long way and sometimes it sounds truly fantastic and sometimes like total cr*p. I attributed the dark sound to my interlinks (which I kept in to compare).

Now let's try win8!

regards, Coen

Hi everyone, this is my first post.

A little bit of introduction. I've been on and off this forum for more than 2 years, and have owned the NOS 1 and XX PC for a year now. However, I do not own the Orelo Mk II.

So why the sudden change to post after all these years of silence? Firstly, I owe it to Peter and all of you who posted in this forum. It is thru your numerous posts and thorough descriptions of your experience and thoughts that have assisted me in taking the plunge to purchase the NOS 1, sight-and-sound unseen. I have never regretted this move as the NOS 1 has indeed brought my audio system to a new high. So thank you all. Secondly, I visited Peter and Ciska at their wonderful home just last Saturday, 16 Aug. It was indeed an ear and eye-opening experience for me. The entire musical reproduction was smooth and easy to listen to. The soundstage was huge and very lifelike. Very low in distortions and colorations so typical with other horn system. And lastly, it is with Peter's encourage that I should contribute in this thread.

But how can I positively contribute to this thread? I don't even own the NOS 1a yet and definitely not the Orelo Mk II. Anyway, I shall give it a shot.

So was the whole thing perfect? err No...(sorry Peter). I recall sharing with Peter that I've always enjoyed listening in a larger room like his. But despite all the positive things mentioned above, there was a slight lack in bass quantity compared to what I am used to having in my system. Moreover, there was a veil to the overall presentation. The clarity and transparency was not quite there. When Peter finally demoed the "Live kick drum vs system reproduction" trick, it didn't make it. The speed and liveliness were not there. This could have contributed to the lack of precise imaging? Even when Peter went behind the speakers to make some adjustments, I could not notice any change. Perhaps, as what Peter said, I must be deaf. So take my comments with a pinch of salt.

So what has changed since then? I don't know. The Orelo Mk II could be one of the speakers that I like to own. But because of its size and my need for the audio/home theatre system to be in the living room, it could not work for me. But one thing I am sure. From what I see in Peter, his incessant pursuit of perfection, he will figure everything out in time to come. Perhaps those extreme settings may really work? Or maybe a little bit more of toe-in? But to those lucky few who can afford to own both the NOS 1a and Orelos, the picture certainly looks bright.

Best regards.

Daniel

Ha !

Daniel, thank you very much for this.

So, true; After I made my post this morning I thought to give it shot and ask Daniel what he thought of my current "sound". Of course he read my post first, but we did NOT explicitly talk about my Windows 7 situation apart from some mere minor details, like Daniel indeed judging the drums to not have enough speed. For me, and Daniel did not know this, it is all hard to judge because all sounding so different in the first place (compared to my W8 machine). So, because of the "complaint" that the drums did not have enough speed I thought to prove reality by playing that drumming recording.
Then I wished I never had done that ... :)

What's also a placebo for me, is that after that drumming track (stopped out of pure misery) I started playing again later in the evening (Daniel on his way back) but I couldn't even listen to anything any more. So poor. The drumming track placeboed me.

What I sort of hoped for was that Daniel full heartedly would shout as loud as I tried this morning how poor all was. Well, I asked Daniel to be honest, and his post came from that.


So yes. We did not talk that through (that I remember) but this is my preception of all being grey as hell. Day before yesterday I started to call it plain ugly. I have no better description for it.


Haha, yes, that is what I said. And I (clearly) said it without listening myself. And not that I perceived any improvement of it. So all was so much without your mentioned clarity to begin with, that nothing helped (that I noticed). But the real culprit only showed when playing that recording. I'm still red on the cheek from it.

To stay on topic, this is exactly why I made my post earlier today. So, something *can* help but it is quite counter intuitive. This is - I think - also how someone with the real knowledge about our auditorial system (VJ) starts to try such things in the first place. I found that a bit odd, but it is not odd when you see it really can work out.

Anwyay, again thank you very much Daniel. And another secret NOS1 user unveiled. :yes:
Regards,
Peter

It would be interesting to get some Details about Daniels audio system.

Kind regards

Joachim

Hi Joachim,

  I have a feeling this is coming. I just managed to update my Signature as it took me quite a while yesterday to successfully send in my post.

Daniel

Hi Daniel,

congratulation for your system. These components are well known to be “very fast” and for its micro- and macrodynamic capabilities.

I was a little bit astonished to read that the Q5 (http://www.stereophile.com/content/magico-q5-loudspeaker-page-4) produces more bass than the Orelo MKII, because I felt that the bass in Peters room was exceptional (in the year 2010).

Your opinion confirms that the acoustic of a room has a major influence of an audio presentation.

Kind regards
Joachim

Joachim, that's a very nice one, since you don't know that we were especially discussing *that*;
My opinion : not true at all once we can prove that the loudspeaker is doing it on its own. And this is exactly what I tried to do. But mind you please (also Daniel) : this was in the realm of nothing much really working, although I did not realize it myself at the moment of me laying it out; this only became clear when I played the drumming track, "knowing" that it would 100% show the room where the drum kit is in, which appeared not to be working at all. Not this time - not with this "W7 setting".

What is also not in Daniel's post, but was explicitly discussed, is how any perceived high volume of bass is actually distortion. Of course, for me this proof was easy, but it is/was hard to lay out because I can not compare with a "normal" speaker. But, we did some tests and possibly that did not come across. On the other hand, no discussion about another one's observation and I obviously asked for a reason to be honest. And so it was (but we must be careful to not leave out contexts).

Reading that Sterophile review ... I will try Little feat tonight. And I already recall that this track is in my Demo Gallery just because of that.
;)
Peter

Hey Mani,
Just as a side note, donno why, I myself ended up with all red, but I'm in a phase of all electronic electronic music, and things have changed for other genre, I've not kept a tab about.

Peter,
I'm just glad so far it has worked out so far with the FM curves. I'm actually having an conflicting experience myself here. Of note, it's peak to end summer here, and it's hot, and many in my locality (May be all) have their AC on, and the line may not be stable. So there are times late evenings when found bass to be phenomenal (+2.2 dB now), to next day afternoon, to WTF nothing there ...?! So that might help?
BTW, FM curves do help with secondary reflections for stereo.

Dan,
My experience with class AB SS amps is that they do have a bit of emphasis in presentation in the upper bass, it might not be distortion, but, just emphasis. I've not listened to SOULUTION  amps themselves, but many, many in its class.

Regards,
VJ

So much for Litte Feat's Waiting for Columbus. I think Stereophile talks about LP (MFSL ?) while I only have the normal CD and no running through a drum kit is there at the start of the album/performance.

I always like to reason out what's really going on when people have perceptions which can't agree with my own. Daniel will know I already tried, actually no different than I would do on this forum. The forum is more "easy" so to speak because people could take for granted what I say. Still though, I always try to support my "statements" (if I ever have those) with logical reasoning. I am going to do the same here too, with for Daniel the knowledge that it really is not different at all from what I already told him while here, and the fun, this was without my knowledge of his speaker, let alone that I could implictly have referred to that Stereophile review. The more speaking the below should be. Well, that's what I hope.

Let me first tell that I know John Atkinson and he is no fool at all. If he says that a speaker doesn't have the punch etc., it is so. BUT, you'd have to know that he knows what to listen for in order to make such judgement. Like he in there refers to rock to show it (from the Q5).

So there we are. The Q5 lacks low while the MKII does too according to Daniel. Where is the contradiction ?

http://www.stereophile.com/content/magico-q5-loudspeaker-measurements

I tried my best to show where low is to be low and where it is not to be that. Thus, reflection to reality. This is a hard thing to do when not knowing the real reality; we should drag in the real basses and such. Still the MKII measures completely flat (+/- 0.5dB up to 19Hz) and now compare with the Q5. What do we see ?

I say Ouch !
If I am as honest as I can be, then I take the avarage "level" between 200 and 6000 Hz and I see a ~2.5dB for that line (with the 0dB line as the reference). This is to be compared with an output at 50-60Hz of 8dB. Uhm, this is 5.5dB More ?!?
If I am less honest (but also more normal) then the average line is at something like 1dB (real rise starting at 300 Hz leftwards) and the difference is thus a sheer 9.5dB.

Are we crazy here ? MKII owners, add 5.5-9.5dB to your bass section and tell me what happens.
But I know, the whole thing will blow itself backwards at a good punch of sound.
Of course, for real comparison only that 50-60Hz area should be boosted. Can be done, but uit will colour as hell.

So ... before we can compare such things, we must first acknowledge that something is the most wrong with the Q5, no matter it may sound very OK. But is it reality ? Well, how can it be.

Now how I read reviews and how you get to learn reviewers :

It is impossible that no notice is made of some superbly high output bass. Well, "superbly" can hardly be in order, but for level it should have been noticed. Still it was not.
But learn to read reviews ...

Where is the distortion plot eh ? It is not there. Why is it not there ? well, me says because it was too poor to show. That is how reviewers work, with the notice they receive gear to review it and no reviewer likes to express badly about that gear because it relates to manufacturers which are people. And why bash on people. Still, what's left out is the explanation how bass does not come forward. But depending on how smart you are (as the reviewer) to leave out things, OR put in things to show you are sure not lying. And while discussing the exact same matter over here last week, this is what I explained :

Any not high passed (for LP) recording, will show a kick drum at ~38Hz that "rolling" all the way to about 20Hz. And this is not the (my) room doing it, because measured from a 2cm distance. It is that (very) low end where the kick in the stomache happens, obviously. Also : A high passed recording will not show a thing of it. Remember, same speaker of course. It's just not in the recording.

Now again look at that plot, and know that any John Atkinson (or me for that matter) *first* seeing that plot, can next see what type of music will work out, and what will not. Also, and this is crucial, envision what the volume know will be tuned to with such a speaker; It will be that 50-60Hz because it is the loudest part. Also (and also crucial) this is where many instruments play. The electric basses and such. And also : this is how the speaker will sound very smooth because the low frequencies will mask the higher ones to a large degree. It's 5.5-9dB higher you know, and this is so much that ... well, what to say.
Anyway, now any electric bass or higher keyed upright bass (up to cello) will be very profound. Nice (but never even for the whole range of the instrument - obviously).

Once you know how the speaker (or the whole lot) measures, you can see that no kick drum (~38Hz) will excel or jump out in the first place because it is 6dB lower than that nice bass playing. So there it starts. Next though there's a very steep roll off and it is right in the area the kick drum likes to play (as said up to 20Hz and this goes in flat fashion !).

Look again at the review; "rated to 29Hz" (similar). Yes ? NO! It is 29Hz if it is related to my mentioned avarage ! Thus, it is 29Hz compared to anything playing in the 200 - 6000 area. It is not 29Hz at all when related to 50-60Hz. And so the bass playing in that 50-60Hz area (but you can make it somewhat broader) is completely masking any kick drum.
And I say it again, only MKII owners know what a difference of already 1dB brings in that area, because it really comes out. Not so with a speaker like this because it will only distort (and I guarantee you that). So instead of the energy given to for example 30Hz it will spread to harmonics like 60Hz (and 90Hz and so on). It is just a stupid fact that it works like that, once you see the plot going as it does. Compare with the MKII's if jou like with further the knowledgs that the super steep roll of beyond 19Hz (leftwards) is there to prevent any 18Hz etc. from turning into 38Hz etc. This is also how the plot gets super straight, would you put up an 18Hz or lower signal and observe what's happening higher up.

If you're almost satisfied with my description of matters, let me also tell you that this plot is highly averaged to maybe 1/2 of an octave which is quite much of averaging. IOW, would it have been done like my plots do (1/12th) than the peak at 50-60Hz would even have been higher and the whole plot more of a mess. Compare with the plot under it where the comparison with the Wilson is made. Even that is already averaged to 1/6th.
Reviews ...

More back to the beginning of this post and my always telling about how distortion fools us :

That low end will show super high distortion. Probably so much that J.A. did not want to show it. But, he justifies that by means of "text" and tells you that you better shouldn't play Rock. But what happens - and I showed that while Daniel was here - is that any distorting low frequency is perceived as an even lower one. You see this happening when a nice sine of say 30Hz is (synthesized) into a more square tone. So first you hear a low sine indeed and which is just perceived by us at a low level because we are not able to hear such low levels so well, and when the harmonics of it (that's what square does) jump in, the first what happens is that we perceive that beter, thus louder. And you know, there is no difference between a sine which is synthesized into a square and a sine which is receiving odd order harmonics because of not being able to do it and thus distorts. It's just the same.
What happens here is different from what I talked about earlier in this post because now any distorting 50-60Hz which is at a too high level to begin with (that 5.5-9.5dB) will show harmonics and you know what ? they are at a lower level (it is just spreading of energy). Now we could say that the Q5 has been designed very smartly, because this blends to a perceived somewhat same level. Think of my often given example of 24Hz we can just hear, and when this distorts you hear 48Hz only and this is only because we perceive 48Hz better than 24Hz. But do this in a smart fashion and the 48Hz will be as loud as the 24Hz. And now you have a nice blend of the both and you think the instrument sounds like that.

Well, I better stop. And anyway, whether I am right or not, this was all already discussed when Daniel was here and then undoubtedly could have come across as stupid theory only. But with now the measurements of the Q5 at hand, I think I did not lie a thing and theories are not so much theory.
Whether this all leads to a better accepted sound (or music) is something else. At least I know with a year of experience with this, that this doesn't bother me at all. The contrary, it is for the better. Sadly though examples exist of things "working" with a normal speaker, now not working any more and this is only because the recording engineer "utilized" the distortion in a speaker to produce the recording. I showed an example of that too, just nothing audible while my old fine speaker showed shaking Whooosh. Now though it appears that the frequency is so low that we can only feel it. Bad luck for that particular track.

Peter

I like to add one thing to this all, outside of feeling that it can have come across as a sort of self-defence (it is not, and I am not saying one thing different from what I'm always saying) :

In my observation Daniel has very good ears. I hope I am allowed to say that. Or maybe put differently : he was better able to discern culprits than me from my own known system. With this in mind ...


Now, we dit NOT talk about this subject at all. But it is spot on. It is also right on topic for our "Imaging" topic here. Let me explain, and MKII owners, be "advised" ...

Up to the lowest frequencies the bass from these speakers is "pure directional". And no, I don't recall that Daniel and me were playing something that would show it (at least I did not for the purpose), but possibly he noticed anyway, and this is related to the quote above;

What I do on purpose is not let blend the bass where I observe(d) it shouldn't. Now, with 0.00 degrees of phase difference between left and right (all NOS1(s) owners have this), this means that any not exactly same initiation of left and right of bass will create a hole in the middle.
Now, sorry to be technical, but because of "electrical" reasons almost all recordings show that not being equal of left and right (for when the sound emerges from the speaker). Let me try to explain by means of the NOS1(s) itself (but I have told this in particular before) : Any common DAC will have a phase difference between left and right of about 0.02 degrees. The NOS1(a) can do this too ... just set Switch#5 up and deactive "Is NOS1" in XXHE Settings (or use another random player).

The difference between these two settings ?
No single whatever bass will sound from one speaker only never mind it really does. Actually it is so that nobody will notice really and notice that it should be tested with the "sine" like sounds only, or otherwise the higher frequency harmonics will discover the real positioning (and now you are fooled and only with good experience you will hear that the bass still comes from the middle).
The difference is only 0.02 degrees (at 1KHz btw and for a lower frequency it will even be less) but it is totally crucial. So is the distance from the two speakers to you - just saying).

What do I want to say ?
Well, that this same difference is for similar reasons how a normal DAC operates, there for the same electrical reasons. Thus, it is almost always there. What does this mean ? ... that no bass will sound from the middle because there's a small difference (delay from left to right or the other way around) that will imply "space". Just think that with DSP you will overdo this and the result is a spatious sound. BUT :

When you allow the both LF beams to merge too much, the effect goes away. Also - and very logically, with the base of the both beams having merged indeed, they will add up fully. Result ? more bass.
Aha.
Aha, because I deliberately prevent that. How ? Toeing out more.
Aha aha.

As an intermezzo I can tell it form a different angle :
This effect - of the both channels not shooting at the exact same time - is so strong for the lowest ferquencies, that the air pressure in the room fluctuates because of it. Easy enough to understand : the SPL is now oscillating with the two beams which don't fire at the exact same time. So normally there's the one frequency only (say 30Hz) and we are used to that, but when the one 30Hz follows the other 30Hz there's actually a distortion going on. And some people are sensitive for this. They go literally sick (and I really experienced that here although it was not me myself). Remedy : Toe-in.

When a woofer is distorting to begin with, there are so many frequencies in order that what's thrown at you becomes more random and the "sick" effect stays away.
I am not bothered by this effect, but *I* am bothered by the uninteresting sound coming from the speakers otherwise. It then just "does not work" any more.

So about the imaging : Try to perceive a bass from the middle to begin with (find the proper recording). Works ? Then now toe-out. Say that you move backwards the outer wing tips for 3cm each. That should do it.
If all works as it does here, you now will perceive that hole in the middle.

Really intended or not, this is how it's in the recording.

But watch closely;
You might have perecived this before and think it is no good. Most easy thinking is that it is the high frequencies doing this to you; but it hardly can because you're listening off-axis to begin with (on purpose, since the mid-high horn is above you); so, the "on purpose" is about the toeing you can now do to your liking because the nid-high will hardly impact because of on-off axis listening (it will for reflections to the side walls, but this is another matter). Thus, concentrate on the bass because it is all about that.

Less bass, but separation in it. Do call it DSP if you like. But if all is right something now starts to "work" which otherwise could not be there at all. It is the left/roght (very fast of course) movement of how the waves emerge form the woofers. It creates spatiousness.

We could say that Daniel was thus spot-on with his idea about the toeing in with the notice that we didn't try a thing with this because it wasn't brought up as a subject. But I know ... it will work. For more bass that is. Not even about more perceived bass but about it really being more (the adding up). So blend it too much and it will happen.
And I do it the other way around on purpose ...

Small disclaimer : I highly doubt whether it would have brought much difference with my Windows 7 which is not accurate in the bass at all ( way way too thick for how I DSP'd the speakers which has been done for Windows 8 ).
Anyway, MKII owners should try and I think it can be a revelation. Very easy to try as well, so let me know your findings ...

Peter

Hi,

Not specifically about the imaging, but after going back to W8 yesterday I again noticed the super clear difference between W7 and W8 at feeling the woofers :

With W8 you feel exactly what you hear.
With W7 you don't feel at all what you hear; by now I appreciate this is one big pile of distortion, which is also how it sounds.

Peter