[doak]

140 dB??
22.5K euro???

I know it isn't April 1 yet!   

well the efficiency of oris swing is 114db and we turned all the 7w from a gainclone amp into it. i didn't measure but it was pretty loud, trust me;)

Hope you were wearing "protection."       
 

[anubisgrau]

I'm sure the Swings are awesome speakers ,,,
though their price would purchase 10 or 11 pair of the Emerald Physics CS2.   

yes, they ain't cheap. but they are worth the money.

OTOH, any speaker that utilizes a DSP unit is handicaped: due to messing with a digital signal it can't be used with advanced PC-playback systems based of bit-perfect reproduction. behringer just ruins a bit-perfect stream.

[csero]

Yeah right.. keep dreaming...

but I'm a realist...you can certainly create "an impression"..but how close can you get to the "REAL THING"?? 60%, 70%?? That's not close enough to me

I'd say after listening to lot of audiophile systems it is more like 1-5% what we have now with a stereo setup   
There is a log way to go toward realism.
When some brag about his stereo's realism in orchestral reproduction, he surely does need a strong reality check.

Sadly, most orchestra recordings were simply not capable of giving you that "aural impression of the hall" that you want to hear. It's not the fault of the speakers, most of the time it's simply because what you want to hear is not in the recording itself.

Sadly you can not record a proper soundfiled with just 2 channels. What you can get with stereo is a weak "aural impression of the hall" at max, but that is still wery-very-very-very far from the realism.

[Daygloworange]

I'd say after listening to lot of audiophile systems it is more like 1-5% what we have now with a stereo setup   
There is a log way to go toward realism.
When some brag about his stereo's realism in orchestral reproduction, he surely does need a strong reality check.

I'll have to strongly disagree. An exceptionally good 2 channel system in a well treated room, fed with a good recording can sound frighteningly real. As someone with over 20 years as a recording engineer, and over 25 years as a classically trained musician. I have experienced it many times.

Sadly you can not record a proper soundfiled with just 2 channels. What you can get with stereo is a weak "aural impression of the hall" at max, but that is still wery-very-very-very far from the realism.

Again, I'll strongly disagree. You obviously haven't heard some of the binaural recordings, or soundfield mic recordings in a really good 2 channel set-up.

IMHO, if you want good orchestral sound reproduction you have only 2 options. You either build a huge room with similar acoustics to a concert hall or you use a small and dead room with multichannel (not 5.1) reproduction.
 

Wrong. In a well done classical recording, all the proper ambient room sound is there on the recording. By now playing back such a recording in a "huge room" is just diffusing the sound even more. You will obscure all the imaging and soundstage that's in the recording.

If anything, you want to eliminate the effects of the listening room when listening to a 2 channel audio system.

Cheers

[BrianM]

What Daygloworange said.

Also, how "real" something sounds is "very very very very" subjective. But the claim that we're only getting "1-5%" is ridiculous.  You don't strengthen your case by overstating it.

[AliG]

I can't support 1-5% too... because I think a Bose system will do more than 5% already....

What Daygloworange said.

Also, how "real" something sounds is "very very very very" subjective. But the claim that we're only getting "1-5%" is ridiculous.  You don't strengthen your case by overstating it.

[csero]

I'd say after listening to lot of audiophile systems it is more like 1-5% what we have now with a stereo setup   
There is a log way to go toward realism.
When some brag about his stereo's realism in orchestral reproduction, he surely does need a strong reality check.

I'll have to strongly disagree. An exceptionally good 2 channel system in a well treated room, fed with a good recording can sound frighteningly real. As someone with over 20 years as a recording engineer, and over 25 years as a classically trained musician. I have experienced it many times.

Sadly you can not record a proper soundfiled with just 2 channels. What you can get with stereo is a weak "aural impression of the hall" at max, but that is still wery-very-very-very far from the realism.

Again, I'll strongly disagree. You obviously haven't heard some of the binaural recordings, or soundfield mic recordings in a really good 2 channel set-up.

IMHO, if you want good orchestral sound reproduction you have only 2 options. You either build a huge room with similar acoustics to a concert hall or you use a small and dead room with multichannel (not 5.1) reproduction.
 

Wrong. In a well done classical recording, all the proper ambient room sound is there on the recording. By now playing back such a recording in a "huge room" is just diffusing the sound even more. You will obscure all the imaging and soundstage that's in the recording.

If anything, you want to eliminate the effects of the listening room when listening to a 2 channel audio system.

Cheers

Sorry, I don't want to get into pissing contest, or "who can say wrong more" competitions, but what you explained above is totally against what known about acustics, human perception, spatialization, homogenous reproduction systems, binaural recording methods, Soundfield mics, etc. It is just a usual audiophile argument.

[TheChairGuy]

I asked Brian Cheney this question about a year ago at a gathering - the man makes some great speakers for decades now and is well versed in music.  His answer was we're at about 80% of 'real'. 

That seemed about right...we're a lot further along than 1-5% I'd say...I don't think any of us would keep plugging away at it if we weren't closer than that to 'real' 

I think if you have a small-ish room, your goal of achieving realism will be better served by analog (vinyl or reel-to-reel) as the relative lack of dynamic range, stereo separation and other matters won't be noticed as much (probably why folks in UK, Europe, Japan have kept the analog flame alive is, in general, are their smaller living spaces than in the US and Canada).  A record might have information down to 35 hertz on it, a digital technology 20 Hertz, so powerful bass waves that can muck up the playback space is far less evident, too.

If you have a large room, full-range speakers (or speakers and subs)...the room has got to be treated well to get the most from (demanding) orchestral music and today's digital technologies and have any sense of realism (much as DGO/Denny is refers to)

John 

[csero]

Just for fun take any orchestral recording recorded with any 2 channel method  and play it back stereophonically in an acoustically different small room with any kind of acoustical treatment you want. Let's suppose you can transfer somebody to the listening position blindfolded and ask him/her how big is the listening space ( not where the record was made).  They can tell 100% certainty if it is a small space compared to the recording venue. From this point on even the 1-5 % is over estimation.

[csero]

I asked Brian Cheney this question about a year ago at a gathering - the man makes some great speakers for decades now and is well versed in music.  His answer was we're at about 80% of 'real'. 

It is like how real is a HDTV pic. You can say 80%, I can say although it can be pretty, it has nothing to do with the real word.

[Randy]

"I asked Brian Cheney this question about a year ago at a gathering - the man makes some great speakers for decades now and is well versed in music.  His answer was we're at about 80% of 'real'."  

No offense to Cheney, but this is an absurd statement. I don't know how you can put a percentage on such a thing, but to think that two, three, or five boxes can in any way approximate a hundred piece symphony orchestra is a flight of fancy. The best you can get is an agreeable illusion of reality, but which in fact is nothing like the real thing.

[BrianM]

Just for fun take any orchestral recording recorded with any 2 channel method  and play it back stereophonically in an acoustically different small room with any kind of acoustical treatment you want. Let's suppose you can transfer somebody to the listening position blindfolded and ask him/her how big is the listening space ( not where the record was made).  They can tell 100% certainty if it is a small space compared to the recording venue. From this point on even the 1-5 % is over estimation.

Since as you say we're only "estimating" here, you'd be better served leaving out phrases like "100% certainty."

[Daygloworange]

"I asked Brian Cheney this question about a year ago at a gathering - the man makes some great speakers for decades now and is well versed in music.  His answer was we're at about 80% of 'real'."  

No offense to Cheney, but this is an absurd statement. I don't know how you can put a percentage on such a thing, but to think that two, three, or five boxes can in any way approximate a hundred piece symphony orchestra is a flight of fancy. The best you can get is an agreeable illusion of reality, but which in fact is nothing like the real thing.

There is nothing absurd about his statement at all.

I can't respond fully right at the moment, but there are a number of points that I'll touch upon that you might want to consider before making the broad claims that 2 channel audio cannot do a remarkeable job at reproducing live events.

Cheers

[opaqueice]

Arguing over these percentages is pointless unless you're more specific about what they mean.

For example: imagine you put a single microphone at ear-height somewhere in the audience while an orchestra is performing and make a mono recording.  Now play back a standard recording of that same performance through a two-channel system, and again record it with a single mic at the listening position.  Now compare those two mono recordings. 

One could assign a single number to the difference in various ways - the most obvious is to take the RMS average of the difference of the waveforms.  My guess is the difference would be 20% or less given a good recording, a decent room and a decent system, but it's just a guess.

[TomS]

The path of this percentage discussion is fairly predictable 

I don't envy a recording and mastering engineer trying to be all things to all people in terms of where they play it back and on what equipment. 

The OP was looking for suggestions and after many pages... well everyone has one 

[Danny Richie]

Hey guys, it's really not that hard to do. I have heard a number of systems, including my own, that can easily create a convincing illusion of being there listening to a symphony orchestra.

LS-9's feed with good gear and in a well treated room can acoustically disappear creating a very realistic sound field with pin point placement of everything in its own place.

110db peaks or so can be breezed through like nothing. No strain. No compression. No breakup, and strong output to below 20Hz.

See this set up: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=43853.0

Another great system is using these is Art's. See pics of his custom built versions of the LS-9's: http://www.jamnaudio.com/customls-9.html

You can think me biased if you like. I designed those speakers. But unless you have heard them don't knock them. They will do what I claim them to do and please feel free to find out for yourself.

[BrianM]

The path of this percentage discussion is fairly predictable 

And totally inane.

It's a bit like suggesting that (say) csero is 95% a stupid imbecile because he's not the omniscient god of the universe, with absolute perfect knowledge of all things that ever were or shall be.  I mean, if you're not that, how dare you claim more than 1-5% intelligence?

[TomS]

Yeah, this started off as a discussion of everybody's feelings about why their fave speakers were so great.  Kind of fun while it lasted.

Trying to quantify this is sort of like a customer satisfaction survey.  The person creating the survey and the respondent both have to define and agree on an objective frame of reference for it to be meaningful to either, yet it's totally subjective and actually drifts around in time to boot.

So what the heck does 85% satisfied mean?  Whatever you want it to 

BTW - I'm looking forward to having those LS-9's to hear all kinds of music on.  Then I'll have at least three or four "all time fav absolute 100% best speakers for orchestral music" that I think are better than whatever everyone else says are theirs   Ain't passion great?

[zybar]

Hey guys, it's really not that hard to do. I have heard a number of systems, including my own, that can easily create a convincing illusion of being there listening to a symphony orchestra.

LS-9's feed with good gear and in a well treated room can acoustically disappear creating a very realistic sound field with pin point placement of everything in its own place.

110db peaks or so can be breezed through like nothing. No strain. No compression. No breakup, and strong output to below 20Hz.

See this set up: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=43853.0

Another great system is using these is Art's. See pics of his custom built versions of the LS-9's: http://www.jamnaudio.com/customls-9.html

You can think me biased if you like. I designed those speakers. But unless you have heard them don't knock them. They will do what I claim them to do and please feel free to find out for yourself.

Thus far I have heard no other speakers handle reproducing the dynamics of full orchestral music like the LS-9's.

Danny,

I should have the pleasure of hearing Art's system next week while I am in town.   

I will be sure to post some comments and thoughts.

George

[AliG]

This can handle 110dB easily too:

Thus far I have heard no other speakers handle reproducing the dynamics of full orchestral music like the LS-9's.