Thoughts, what makes the Confidence C2 image so well?

[aprilia88]

I recently auditioned the dynaudio Confidence C2's at a used hi fi shop here in portland. While I was not impressed with the sound quality, they imaged like crazy. The dual tweeters seem to go against the correct way of thinking, maybe they are part of the mystery.

[Face]

Was the room treated?

What kind of gear were they using?

[---k---]

I think Face was touching on some of it. I have found that getting the room placement to be one of the biggest factors in getting good imaging and soundstage depth. Having the speakers just slightly asymmetrical or the room layout such that the reflections will be asymmetrical will really affect imaging. Same with distance to the back wall and if objects are placed between them.

Within the crossover, some people believe it is getting the phase correct that gets the imagining right. I'm not going to argue with that.


I remember a few years back when I auditioned a pair of Dynaudio 42 in my house. They were a very interesting speaker. Once I got them out into the room more and turned up the power to them, they stated to come to life. I enjoyed them, but they were very different in tonal and spatial reproduction than the other speakers we were auditioning. I remember at the time that CJD described them as sounding like everything was close-mic'ed. It snapped in my head. He was right. The piano rather than sounding like it was in the middle of a room, sounded like a mic was stuck inside it. Warm and rich, but...

[Bear]

I remember at the time that CJD described them as sounding like everything was close-mic'ed. It snapped in my head. He was right. The piano rather than sounding like it was in the middle of a room, sounded like a mic was stuck inside it. Warm and rich, but...

The technical purist in me wonders if that was actually how it was recorded. I'm often guilty of wanting a studio recording to image like a live performance, and yet I know intellectually that a studio recording should sound like a studio recording (plus some fudging with the mixing controls).

[JonMarsh]

All of you guys are on to something, here, interesting points- What it boils down to in my mind, that none of us know what the actual live mic feeds sound like- and that depends a lot on how things were setup.

So, let's see you take the high end audiophile approach to the speaker system design and placement, and it's successful in making a natural recording of an acoustic performance using a simple stereo Blumlein pair mic setup really sound like you're there, will that setup be ideal for the majority of studio nearfield multi-mike recordings? Like your comments about the Dynaudio 42, sounding like the mic was in the piano, well, the question is, was it? If so, than that's good reproduction of the issues with the recording.

Unfortunately, the reality is a lot of conventional commercial recordings may sound not as you usually here them- controlling room acoustics and reflections will help, but only so much. Sometimes the balance is just wrong- a high end set of headphones can help decoding where the problems lie.

You can't imagine how depressed I've been over many years until very recently, because Deutsche Grammaphone used so much moronic accent microphones to add "presence" (code for BS) to recordings, and of course not being able to get it mixed down with clean phase and winding up with these steely sounding recordings with various kinds of presence range emphasis- only recently have they gone over to a more natural setup and recording style and gotten some really nice recordings done, such as the Prokofiev/Ravel Piano Concertos with Yundi Li, a really remarkable Chinese Pianist.



It's been decades since I'd recommend DG recordings, but now they seem to be back on track, which is something of a relief, considering the number of top flight classical artists they have signed.

[cjd]

Some of the music I brought was NOT close mic'd...

What that really suggests to me is that the Dyn's were sucking up low low level detail and failing to resolve it (i.e. 50dB down). Given how power hungry they were to get them to open up, this is not even remotely surprising.

Imaging is a trick of the brain - I've been reading a book on stereo VISION (my sister has strabismus, I have far less problematic horizontal alignment issues but Prism in my lenses still helps) and it's making me think again about all this stuff.

Reality is NOT what it is, but what your brain makes of it. So it is entirely possible for a speaker to image like crazy and present entirely incorrectly (else studio recording would fail). And room seems, to me, to be a huge part of that equation.

[JonMarsh]

Some of the music I brought was NOT close mic'd...


Reality is NOT what it is, but what your brain makes of it. So it is entirely possible for a speaker to image like crazy and present entirely incorrectly (else studio recording would fail). And room seems, to me, to be a huge part of that equation.

When a large part of imaging is trying to present the "acoustic" of the space a recording is made in, being overwhelmed by the "local acoustic" is pretty typical. Without addressing speaker positioning and early reflections, there's not much hope.

What that really suggests to me is that the Dyn's were sucking up low low level detail and failing to resolve it (i.e. 50dB down). Given how power hungry they were to get them to open up, this is not even remotely surprising.

And more than just speakers can bung up that part of the equation- there's a lot to answer to in most digital electronics, unfortunately, which often don't maintain retrieval of low level detail in the presence of high level signals (i.e., low level signals get mucked up when the big bits are flappin, signals that you can resolve easily with a good 15 IPS half track recorder.) (and with some digital).

[---k---]

The technical purist in me wonders if that was actually how it was recorded. I'm often guilty of wanting a studio recording to image like a live performance, and yet I know intellectually that a studio recording should sound like a studio recording (plus some fudging with the mixing controls).

Fair comment. As CJD points out, some of the music was not close mic. However, I'm sure there are recordings that are close miced that don't sound like it and vice-verse. But, we also had a few other speakers along side to compare to (Ascend 304SE, Paradigm Studio 40, and CJD's RS150 MTM). It was the difference in presentation between the different speakers that really drew the comment out.


Of course, in a side detour, there are some who dislike speakers that "image like crazy".

[cjd]

I have the rather interesting "Jazz at the Pawn Shop" album which was live recorded with fixed mic locations and CAN show you just how good (or not) your imaging is. Even that is not perfect, I think.

You can try to get synthetic "benchmark" type recordings, but those are only so useful as well.

This is one reason I tend to NOT pay attention to specific spatial rendering properties aside from directly comparing two speakers in the same space at roughly the same time.

The oddest for me so far has been at Ryan's, I was sitting waaaay off to the left side when my surrounds were on the floor, tweeter facing up, yet they still cast a fairly believable soundstage *behind and between* the speakers, even from that position.

[---k---]

Just for reference, this is the speaker in question:

Symmetry is an unmistakable hallmark of the Evidence by Dynaudio. The drive unit arrangement and their construction in relation to the unique crossover serve as the foundation of the DDC technology (Dynaudio Directivity Control).

Through years of development experience with Dynaudio professional studio monitor loudspeakers, it became clear that many recordings are of superb quality but that through listening room acoustics the potential of these recordings could not be truly experienced. In particular, reflections from floor and ceiling boundaries interfere with a faithful, realistic sonic reproduction because of the reflections and added time delays. In such surroundings not even the best loudspeaker technology could unveil the sonic potential.

Through the Evidence, Dynaudio has created a concept that effectively reduces these reflections. The vertical symmetrical drive unit array and the elaborate crossover topology reduce the energy dispersed to the floor and ceiling by approximately 75 percent. The controlled vertical dispersion makes the Evidence far less dependent on the room and much less critical in positioning as compared to any other loudspeaker available.

DDC isn’t simply arranging the drive units in a symmetrical array. For Dynaudio Directivity Control to succeed, every single detail – from each drive unit to the crossover – must be individually tailored for this concept. Instrumental is the specific arrangement of the drivers. With two tweeters, two mid-range drivers and four woofers per loudspeaker, each drive unit complements its identical counterpart in frequency response and phase relationship in such a way that a carefully defined dispersion characteristic is achieved. This intricate matching is repeated once again for each loudspeaker pair to work together in tandem.

DDC is an impressive example of the innovative Evidence concept: the Evidence reproduces the sonic truth of a recording - and with it provides the emotional bond to music that has long been so elusive.

[JonMarsh]

Yup- heard those at CES a couple of years ago. They roll the top end on one tweeter off early, to deal with vertical comb filtering. They sounded better than a lot of other speakers at the show, but they were also being driven by some fairly top end Cary electronics, including their SACD player.

[JonMarsh]

I have the rather interesting "Jazz at the Pawn Shop" album which was live recorded with fixed mic locations and CAN show you just how good (or not) your imaging is. Even that is not perfect, I think.

Another good recording in this vein is Harry James "The King James Version", from Sheffield Labs. Another Blumlein style recording, done in a chapel with nice acoustics, very well setup (circa 1976). I've played that for folks that aren't too familiar with Sheffield labs, and they thought it was some new Sierra Hotel digital recording; almost had to scrape the jaw off the floor when they found out it dated from 1976 (about the same as the Jazz at the Pawnshop series, which is also available in a very nice SACD version; I "only" have the XRCD version for now, two disk).

That off to the side support of imaging is usually the hallmark of excellent power response without too much early diffraction high level signals, Chris, it's obviously a product of good design. The little Modula MT XE's do well in that regard, too, I figure because of the waveguide (it's a convenient thing to blame it on... :W )

[Bear]

Fair comment. As CJD points out, some of the music was not close mic. However, I'm sure there are recordings that are close miced that don't sound like it and vice-verse. But, we also had a few other speakers along side to compare to (Ascend 304SE, Paradigm Studio 40, and CJD's RS150 MTM). It was the difference in presentation between the different speakers that really drew the comment out.


Of course, in a side detour, there are some who dislike speakers that "image like crazy".

I'm not questioning whether it was or not, but I have had a number of times where I had great imaging, a real 3D soundstage, but mentally I knew that it was a studio recording where the placement of the individual instruments probably had little to do with where they sounded like they were placed. It's always something I think about (e.g., technical purity of reproduction vs. what sounds good) when thinking about speaker "accuracy". No slight intended for your evaluation methodologies!

[cjd]

The SACD version is nice. I wish there were a regular version (I seem to recall that's not hybrid) so I could rip it, as I don't like hauling the SACD player around.

I suspect I've never heard a system that *really* casts a good soundstage yet... at least, I've sure never been floored by the dimsionality and all that stuff - I've only found it pretty interesting. Then again, I may just not be into staging. I have problems with those "3d images pop out of a pile of dots" images they used to sell at every little booth in the mall (maybe still do, no clue) - I just see dots.

[JonMarsh]

The XRCD versions is "just" redbook CD, quite rip-able. Nice to have on a portable player (ALAC or AIFF). With the right equipment, the SACD is rippable, too, I'm in the process of going through my entire SACD collection, but it's like making cassettes off of records, no way to get the digital signal except realtime playback.

The whole 3D imaging thing is certainly based on psycho acoustic issues, who knows, maybe some training, too? I had a system with great imaging and the right room for it back in the late 70's. Circumstances and equipment changed, and I bought into CD way before when it was really ready. I'm just finally back to the level of staging and imaging I had in the late 70s. Even then, finding a preamp with a phono stage that got things was right at a reasonable price was a real bear (I was in the business back then, partner in a high end audio shop), we carried Levinson, among others, but that didn't do it for me; the best sounding reasonable price preamp I found then was the Audionics BT-2 preamp; it's was the only thing under a grand that sounded much like the real thing and imaged (I was doing some live classical recording in those days, so believe me, I was very OCD about that).



Mine was stolen during a break-in, so I ended up spending a fair amount of time designing my own phono preamp only using passive interstage equalization and JFET based discrete modules using similar parts as JC was using in those days, but with cascoded input stage and buffered outputs.

I mean, to put it in perspective, imaging is not the only thing, but when you get the system right enough to do that well, there's all sorts of other nuanced things that are done better, and for me, that just elevates the whole experience. And yes, panned multi-mic image or overlayed layout sound staging is not the same thing as a natural acoustic, but doing that well doesn't hurt, IMO.

[Dennis H]

Too bad Sony has kept such a stranglehold on pro SACD gear and then abandoned SACD all together. DSD should translate bit for bit into 88.2K or 176.4K PCM (that was part of the original spec) but consumers can't buy anything that will do it.

[cjd]

I'm a sucker for awesome performances that are horribly recorded, so...

All that audiophile magic is definitely NOT always what I'm after.

(Solti conducting CSO performing Mahler - ouch. Such incredible performances, such a sad job on transfer, heavily compressed to fit onto fewer LP's...)

[JonMarsh]

Too bad Sony has kept such a stranglehold on pro SACD gear and then abandoned SACD all together. DSD should translate bit for bit into 88.2K or 176.4K PCM (that was part of the original spec) but consumers can't buy anything that will do it.

Yeah, you can't go into Best Buy or Magnolia HiFi and walk out with something that converts DSD to 24/176.4, but that doesn't mean it can't be done with a bit of effort. :twisted:

You've got to start with a player that uses BB/TI chip sets that expose the DSD signals and all clocks on external pins, of course. No one has broken the SACD encryption that I know of, hardware circumvention is necessary- with the help of a small outfit in Eastern Europe, that is possible.



I mean, I'm a consumer, aren't I? I consume audio, that's for sure! :yesnod:

It is a PITA to do, as the extraction must occur in realtime, but slow and steady gets the job done- I've got about 85 done so far, unfortunately still have about the same number to go.

[aprilia88]

The room and equipment

The room was treated with multiple corner traps and was generaly damped pretty heavily. The speakers were run with audio research gear. Which gear I do not know. I also listened to wilson cub's and a pair of usher monitors.
While they all seemed extra lean in the bass department, the midrange of the usher was quite magical but did not have the same imaging ability as the dynaudio. The
Dynaudio's staged more like my hi-vi b3s line array's than a normal speaker.
Given the large seperation between drivers there must be cancelation issues. Even if certain drivers are rolled off early. Very interesting to say the least.

[JonMarsh]

The way you describe the room is what I would have guessed- otherwise things tend to get too lively in the presence range with a speaker that has a wide power response profile.

Looking at those makes me wonder what a tower with a similar midwoofer arrangement (probably with individual bass sections, and not running the whole height, to avoid column resonances) might sound like with a waveguide loaded tweeter instead- though 2 kHz would be a tough crossover point for an MTM, IMO.

BTW, those C-2 go for $12K per pair.

[aprilia88]

I came away impressed with the design, just not with the drivers. When comparing them to the usher 2-way with what I assume is the 8945 woofer. The Dynaudio's woofers had substantially more coloration.

[JonMarsh]

That's something I've heard before, and they don't actually measure all that well- the HiVi D6.8, which is not a "state of the art" driver, measures better in many regards. Go figure...