u/audioconnectionaus

There are a lot of great ways to listen to music.

Personally though, I get the most out of it when I focus about half of my attention on it, while simultaneously letting the rest of my mind go along for the ride.

It reminds me of meditation. Going inward and observing what the music makes me think, how it makes me feel, where it takes me. Trying not to control the process too much, while at the same time, spontaneously engaging in the visions that come to me.

This way of listening is more enjoyable, I find, and it can also help me process stuff going on in my life.

For example, this morning I was carrying stress over a personal episode that I couldn’t shake. I listened to Suite for Krug in 2008 by Ryuichi Sakamoto, and it helped me to realise how trivial my worry was in the grand scheme of life.

The song’s character felt mellow, accepting, yet somehow optimistic. It had the pace of sunlight dancing on a forest floor, during a gentle breeze. It gave me perspective on what really matters.

This is one of the reasons I’ve developed such an appreciation for classic music: it tends to give us more space to find our own context.

Does this sound familiar?

What way of music listening is the most fulfilling for you?

KEF luxury is here

A new system has joined KEF’s renowned wireless range of incredible-sounding speakers: the KEF LS LUXE.

Designed by Ross Lovegrove

The Welsh industrial designer crafted the LS LUXE using his specialty in “biomimicry:” creating shapes that seem to have grown rather than being manufactured.

Working within the boundaries of acoustic excellence, Lovegrove cites oscillating between pure emotion—taking to the design as if it were a sculpture—and discovery—finding new ways to solve practical design problems.

The result is something that delivers raw emotion to the eyes as much as the ears.

Engineered by KEF

KEF’s latest technologies for producing the best possible sound in the smallest possible enclosure live inside LS LUXE.

The 12th generation of their famous Uni-Q point-source driver for imaging and bass. Metamaterial baffling for an immaculate treble response. A unique feedback system for eliminating distortion at the driver level. And more.

For those who aren’t sure about the difference…

Passive speakers require an external amplifier, and handle the crossover after the power amp stage.

Active speakers have amps built in, need a power connection, and handle the crossover BEFORE the power stage.

They may or may not have Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi streaming, or other inputs—so you may need additional components, but you won’t need an amp.

Which is better?

In truth, there are engineering advantages of both types, and one doesn’t necessarily sound better than the other.

For instance, passive speakers have fewer components in a given enclosure, which prevents magnetic interference between parts and lets the engineers focus the design on doing fewer jobs really well.

Yet actives have dedicated amps designed for the specific driver—not just the speaker but the individual driver—as well as the crossover advantage I mentioned before.

Consider that the crossover is a circuit that divides up the frequency range, and passes it to the appropriate driver. (E.g. lows go to the woofer, highs go to the tweeter.)

By putting this before the power amp stage (where signal voltage is much lower) the job can be done using sensitive transistors instead of relying on robust capacitors and inductors. This lets the engineers produce more precise transitions between drivers.

That's interesting stuff, but in practice it doesn't make either type the "better" choice.

Instead I’d suggest going about choosing between the two types like this:

If you absolutely loathe the idea of having to place electronics somewhere, then don’t hesitate to go active. There are some awesome sounding active speakers out there, like the KEF LS50 Wireless II. Just make sure they have the inputs and other features you need.

However if you’re open to having electronics, passive speakers give you a lot more options (in terms of both sound and aesthetics). The ceiling on quality is also much higher. And if you’re into hi-fi as a hobby or fascination, passives let you experience exploring, selecting and upgrading different components.

Regardless of which you pick, just be sure the specific model you go with sounds good to you. I mean, make sure it brings your music to life in a way you love.

Happy listening!

The obvious, gut-reaction answer is the speakers.

And then when you think about it... it still seems like it’s the speakers.

Two different pairs of speakers usually sound different to a greater degree than two of anything else—especially at a similar price point.

They’re also the most visually important part.

Stars of the show, really.

However, in truth…

The most important audio component is the source.

(So the streamer, or turntable, for instance.)

If the source is not doing a good job, everything else suffers.

It feeds everything else, so everything else can only sound as good as it.

Distortion and noise at the source will be amplified again and again before it reaches the speakers.

The sound difference between two sources at roughly the same price can be harder to pick… even negligible.

But upgrading from a good source to a great one can lift all ships, and show what the rest of the system can really do.

Have you experienced this?

For those who are open to getting big speakers but aren’t sure why they’d choose them, here’s what I tell customers.

First off the size of the room matters.

If floorstanding speakers are too big for a room, they’ll never “disappear.” I mean it’s less likely you’ll get that stereo effect where you can’t even tell the sound is coming from speakers. Meanwhile good bookshelf speakers can deliver quite a full experience in a small room.

In contrast if bookshelf speakers are too small for a room, there’s a similar effect. They won’t be able to immerse you in sound—even if you push the volume.

But if the room is somewhere in-between, and both sizes can work, then floorstanding speakers will provide better bass and better overall performance at higher volumes.

(Assuming the floorstanders and bookshelf speakers are from the same product line—same cabinet and driver materials and so on.)

This is because (1) floorstanders have cabinets with more volume, which is typically used to improve bass response, and more importantly (2) they usually have more drivers, which splits the frequency band up. That means woofers and midrange drivers have less work to do so they can do a better job, especially at higher volumes.

Anyway these are the main reasons I usually offer when someone is choosing between floorstanders or bookshelf speakers.

Which do you prefer?

Interesting thought I had about my relationship to classical music…

For a long time I didn’t “get” classical music. I mean I didn’t take it seriously. That's probably common for non-musically-inclined youths, but I was pretty grown and still wasn’t into it.

I did however listen to film soundtracks. Soundtracks from movies that I connected with. Off the top of my head, Zihuatanejo from the Shawshank soundtrack was one of my old favorites.

This actually primed me to appreciate classical.

For one, film soundtracks (good ones anyway) are really on-the-nose about the emotions they elicit. Classical music is often more subtle and irregular. It often demands an appreciation for the natural ebb and flow of emotion.

Two, I think soundtracks also acted like training wheels. Because I saw these emotional and complete stories alongside the music, it sort of told me how to feel. Next time I heard the song it brought me back to the feeling. Except I wasn’t imagining a scene from the film this time—I was imagining something relevant to my life, my sense of self, my relationships.

Then one day I heard a proper classical piece, the sort of piece that’d make me glaze over before, and somehow became aware of the emotions it carried. My perspective shifted. After that, I started looking for the feeling of a piece—instead of expecting it to hit me upside the head.

My appreciation for classical (and all styles of music) expanded immeasurably.

Can you relate?

I recently compared the KEF Q Concerto Meta and Acoustic Energy AE500 bookshelf speakers, and thought I’d summarise the listening notes here for those curious.

https://preview.redd.it/2zki32pc7v0h1.jpg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a505d9bb9daea1063bb0f8c657e9757b13a1d787

When it comes to shopping for speakers online (because you can’t go to a dealer to demo them for whatever reason) I think the best thing you can do is read listening notes. It gives you something you can relate your preferences to.

The songs I used for the test were…

• Red Rain by Peter Gabriel: a well-recorded art rock song with pop elements that sounds good on most speakers.
• When The Levee Breaks by Led Zeppelin: a rich and emotional rock classic that really shines with a lively system.
• Ghostman by Skinny Puppy: an avant garde electronic song with lots of synths, samples and post-production effects. I chose this one because (1) the drop at 57 seconds is a good test of bass response, and (2) overall it tests how a speaker can handle busy music with lots going on.

The KEF Q Concerto Meta had a big sound that seemed to fill the room. Really wide soundstage.

They had good bass extension for a bookshelf speaker, though it was a little soft. Not “boomy,” but not as tight and responsive as the AE500s.

Treble and midrange wise they were detailed while also being relaxed; they felt easy to listen to. Vocals came through clear and centred.

The Acoustic Energy AE500s had richness and depth to them, but it was more punchy. This made the bass response feel powerful, as they delivered bass hits with slightly better tonal quality and timing.

They also had a cleaner, more forward presentation in the mids and highs. Details were more obvious. Snare and cymbal hits were that little bit more distinct.

The soundstage was clearer with instruments sounding more separate, but it wasn’t as wide as the KEFs.

If you like the high-fidelity, “black background” sort of sound that reveals everything and really holds your attention, the AE500s would probably be your preference. They were strong with Red Rain and Ghostman, handling sections with a lot going on at once and giving brilliant bass punch.

The downside was that they might be fatiguing if heard at higher volumes for a long session. They also lacked the sense of ambient space that makes you feel like you’re at an actual live concert.

The KEFs on the other hand nailed that aspect. That room-filling quality really made it feel like a live show in a real acoustic space. This was amazing for When The Levee Breaks; the KEFs captured the wild, energetic feel of that song. Robert Plant’s voice sounded awesome belting out lyrics through that overdriven analog distortion effect.

The KEFs would be more forgiving for rougher recordings and definitely turn the room into a concert venue.

TLDR:

Bass extension and treble detail were similar on both. The KEF Q Concerto Meta had a wider soundstage and felt more like a live concert. The Acoustic Energy AE500s had clearer details and tighter bass, great separation but a more forward and compact soundstage. Overall fidelity was slightly better with the AE500.

After my first “aha” moment with hi-fi—when I actually understood why high fidelity playback is so sensational—I believed detail was the game.

The more a system could reveal what’s on the recording and make it clear and audible, the better I thought it was. I wanted to close my eyes and feel like there was an actual guitar in the room in front of me. I wanted to hear the saxophonist scoot their chair. I wanted to hear the vocalist breathing in before a verse.

The more I heard that, the better I rated the speaker, the amp, the DAC, the whatever.

Around that time I heard the origin story of Bose. Dr. Bose would burn the midnight oil in a lab at MIT, working on prototypes for what would become the 2201 speaker—a semi-orb filled with drivers that fired sound in all directions, filling the room and wrapping the ears in sound.

The philosophy behind the design was to create the experience of being at a live concert. Mind you a lot of speaker makers claim to have this goal, but at the time, I hadn’t heard that before.

I didn’t actually understand what that meant. But now, 12 years later, I do.

I’ve heard systems and equipment that aren’t the most clear and forward, but still sound amazing and in fact, sound much better for certain styles of music.

For some listeners, systems can actually be too detailed and revealing. They can be fatiguing and hard to listen to for any length of time. They can fail miserably to render poorly recorded music, where a more relaxed system would’ve brought it life.

It really does feel like the difference between listening to live music at a live show, versus hearing it in the recording studio. One is warm, rich, wide, room-filling, relaxed, and includes the softening effect of an imperfect acoustic environment. The other is accurate, crisp, detailed, forward, revealing, and isolates the performance in an unnatural way.

That’s not to say a “warmer” system lacks fidelity. That’s sometimes true. But a very high fidelity system can still be warm and smooth. The difference is in how it presents those details.

The word I’ve learned to use to describe this is “timbre.” As Wikipedia eloquently puts it, “what makes a particular musical instrument or human voice have a different sound from another, even when they play or sing the same note.” So in hi-fi, can two systems of equal quality in most objective measures sound different, even when they play the same recording.

This often accounts for why some people prefer one component to another. Why it can be fun to listen to a new pair of speakers when you’ve already got an awesome setup at home. Why it’s important to understand your relationship to music before you invest in a quality stereo system.

Anyway, this has been on my mind lately so I thought I’d share. If you’ve noticed this, or have a different perspective, please share.

We can connect fully to a song as long as we can make it out. An average Bluetooth speaker or cheap earbuds are enough. Hell my partner listens through her iphone speaker.

That’s why many musicians are indifferent about home audio gear.

But then you listen to a few hi-fi systems, maybe buy one, get “bitten by the bug,” and develop a taste for fine sound. All that depth, richness, detail. Music through those cheap speakers just doesn’t feel the same anymore.

Would we be better off if we never heard hi-fi in the first place?

After all, those cheap speakers used to do the job.

I’ve heard it said that hi-fi doesn’t improve our connection to music, rather it adds a layer of sensuality to the experience. Maybe when we’re buzzed off the sound of good audio, we’re doing two things at once: connecting with the music and savoring the textured soundscape.

It makes sense, if you think hot coffee is good, and even better when it’s single origin through a La Marzocco. Same goes for wine, or beer, or driving, or telling time.

So maybe the question is, if one prefers fine espresso, can they still enjoy the buzz of a hotel coffee?

Can we suspend our search for nuance and complexity, in order to simply enjoy a melody or rhythm?