Romy,  I have been trying to explain to myself what happened and how I got to it and trying to recreate this wonderful boiling point.

I tried to make a write up of all the steps needed in order to make it happen,  but it is ever so elusive.
 I do have notes on the gea I was suing but several changes have been made since then, that I am confident will eventually help me on the way.

Any way I want to share this in case anyone has got to it or part of it so we can find a more  scientific way to make it happen.

Basic guide to advanced audio

Several stages of performance can be observed in a music reproduction system: Perfect resolution, Sphere like soundstage, Harmonizing effect and Boiling point.  These effects are achievable one after the other on your sound system and will help convert a good performance into a moving, even life changing event without having to leave your listening room.  I will try, to the best of my knowledge to describe these points as detailed as possible, trying to keep the thread of what we are talking about, sound reproduction, and not stray into electronics or equipment setting.

Perfect Resolution

The first step of the way to achieve is a Prefect Resolution of the recorded material. This in itself is what this hobby, art form and industry has been all about if we take away the ego buys.

Of course achieving this is no easy task, but a seasoned audiophile should have perfect ability to do so and can get to this point, mostly if we start talking about sound reproduction and stop talking about equipment as an isolated object in a fetishist way.

The first big barrier to cross is to get rid of the big mess and terrible reproduction at the upper bass level.  The most complicated range of music is here, where most instruments have their fundamental frequencies.  This range has to be solved perfectly to bring transparency to the whole spectrum of listening.  Most setups without a specific channel for this frequency sound cluttered and obscure; Imagine there are high and mid frequencies spiking up and down, but  a flat line of some sort at around  300- 200 hz,  sound just doesn’t seem to go past this flat line,  so you get chopped up instruments going up high,  then a big mess at 300 hz,  and then big thumping disconnected bass from 100 hz down,  but it is hard for an instrument to pass that barrier and go cleanly all the way through,  down to the lowest ranges of listening.   Once you get rid of this barrier, instruments just come to life with much more power and punch, even at lower listening levels; this is what brings in that reality feeling!  Bass being totally integrated with the mid range in one sphere like sound. Yes even a violin sounds fuller with a clean response down to 20 hertz.

Even within a perfect resolution there are still levels.  You can get this complete instrument effect, easily with a single driver speaker, and I guess this is why they have so much popularity, but I would not say getting the complete instrument effect will bring in perfect resolution; for this you need to have the frequency extremes perfectly solved and to be able to reproduce more than one instrument. 

I will call a Perfect Resolution of a system when you can be able to play a full orchestra at real life volume levels without even a glitch in reproduction, no small distortions anywhere in the spectrum, no saturation of any level not bass dragging around, good dynamics at each and every frequency, with perfect macro and micro detail resolution. 

When the instruments sound like real full instruments perfectly delineated and existing in their own space and you can pin point each one of them in the sound stage.

Sphere like Soundstage

Here is where things start getting more complicated, to achieve this you need to measure the response of your system, an RTA is completely necessary if you didn’t have it already. Also you need to have each channel of your speakers independently wired so you can connect and disconnect it and also be able to modify the volume it is playing at.

This ritual I am about to describe will become part of your setting of a system and unluckily needs to be done often, when a new piece of gear is introduced or when the effect starts to wear out.

The first thing to do is disconnect one side of your play back and concentrate on the other.   Disconnect all the drivers and measure only the response of the tweeter. Then disconnect the tweeter and measure just the response of the midrange, the upper bass, and whatever channels you have individually.  Adjust the volume of each one to get the same volume out of every channel. 

You will notice when you start getting under 200 hz big bass peaks and valleys in response appear, this is your room playing tricks on you. There is no easy way to fix this, go ahead and push all the EQ buttons you want, you will just kill sound, but do it because it is good to recognize what dead sound is, and because you will of course not believe me when I tell you that all the electronic gear and digital xovers and room equalizers are useless.  Spend as much time and money as you wish.  Eventually you will come to realize that the only solution to the bass room modes is speaker positioning and volume levels of the different channels you have playing under 200 hz, and learning to accept what you cannot change.

After you are done measuring and adjusting both sides your system will sound like shit. 

This is where your training and culture play a roll, all those nights at the concert hall, all those piano lessons, the live events you have listened to; all will become part of how your system sounds. The rest of the adjusting has to be done by ear, this is the detail of it and the devil is in the details.

A completely flat system sounds horrible, depending on your room acoustics and your tastes the volume of each channel, either mono or stereo has to be very slightly readjusted, adjustments of half a db are in place, if you need to adjust too much, it means the measuring will be lost and you will need to start the whole process again.

For this we are already talking about a well set up system with no TV in the middle and with the speakers perfectly positioned and equidistant from the sweet spot.

When everything is in place and al the volumes are perfectly set. You will need to check this 2 points that are off in almost every system I have listened too:

 Most probably you will need to lower the highs, most tweeters are set with too much volume because of a cultural mistake,  we have learned to listen and enjoy the sparkle on top of the instruments,  like a foam on top of everything,  tweeters don’t need to call the attention of your ear, tweeters need to disappear and form part of the instrument midrange,  they need to fill in the response of the instrument at the higher levels where the midrange driver cannot go,  but don’t ever be present,  this will kill the reality feeling and destroy the sphere like soundstage.

Lower bass say from 50 hz under depending on your channels, will probably be too high. Again we have been taught by the industry that bass is good and that punchy sound is what we need, I have seen subwoofers in good systems dragged all across the Swan Lake. Subwoofers are there to disappear, to never be heard and just complete the instrument´s lower registers, without calling any attention to them.  But also they are there to bring out the shine of an orchestra when the crescendo is in full.  This is where big dynamics of the subwoofers are needed and this is where they usually can’t perform, the horn channels will be jumping up and down but the bass channels won’t be able to keep up, so one is  tempted to raise the volume, do not do it: when the crescendo is over the bass will be ever present.  The problem is not the volume but the poor dynamic response of the bass channel and it should be addressed this way.  I order to fix this you need to either add more bass speakers, more transducer area, or make one of those huge Bass horns.

These two points could be part of a Perfect Resolution, but be certain that if this is not addressed; the Sphere Like soundstage will not appear properly. Somehow miss adjusted channels break through the sphere and pop the bubble.  The sound shall be of an extended midrange without the crisp highs and the ever present lows. 

When all this is achieved the sound stage of your system will gradually begin to increase, instruments will be pin pointed in the space and the midrange will acquire a beautiful fullness, a roundness that will keep growing and on certain recordings you will eventually form a Sphere like Soundstage, where the sides of your soundstage will grow so much and the deepness of the soundstage will be so that the instruments are detached perfectly from the speakers and form a sphere right in front of you.

Again there are levels for this and some systems with better gear and more attention to set up will sound better, will give a fuller sphere soundstage with more ease and with better micro detail of the instruments.  Bigger rooms will of course have a bigger soundstage and are capable of withholding higher volume levels.

To get to this point you already need a speaker system that allows each driver to be adjusted independently, and at least a geometric visual time alignment of the drivers is needed, a separate amplifier for the bass is a requirement too, in order to be able to manage bass response. Be clear, if any of these points are missing from your system you will not be able to get the effect.

Harmonizing Effect

This is very difficult to achieve, I have managed to get there just a few times, and if any adjustment or change of gear is introduced in the system, the effect will be lost and you will need to readjust everything.  

Things start to get to a point here where recipes are not easy to give and will not even ensure success.  But some basic points must be established that are definitely needed to achieve this.

 I have never been able to get the Harmonizing effect without multiamping.   Biamping has already been established as needed for the prior point, being multiamping very useful.  For the harmonizing effect biamping won’t be enough no matter how perfectly set each speaker volume is, you could probably share one amp for two speakers with very similar response,  but one amp per speaker is the best bet.   

The minimal adjustment of volume levels for each driver is so perfectly needed that any contraption being Lpads, speaker level volume controls or even wire gauge adjustments will not bring in the response level we need. 

Time Alignment is a must.  For this level you need to have each driver of your speaker system, of course wired independently, but also physically detached from the others in order to be able to slide it forward and backwards until it snaps into place.

The ritual described above has to be conducted again, but this time with another purpose in mind: to time align each driver on your speakers.  This process has been described before in some Altec literature and on some expert websites.   You will have to play a tone at the frequency where the driver´s cross over is set at: for example 500hz.  You connect only the 2 drivers we are measuring and invert the cables on one of them. Then play the tone at the crossover point, 500 hz: and you slide the driver you are adjusting until the SPL meter shows a dip in the response at that frequency.  This has to be done on all of the drivers on both sides of your speakers.

Once everything is reconnected and the system is sounding again a seemingly endless micro volume adjustment of each driver is performed while listening to music.  Again your cultural baggage will play the most important roll on deciding which volume to adjust a how much higher or lower. 

Brick by brick is layered of micro adjustments until the volume and the tone on each instrument all along its frequency range are set in order to give it a full image.  Place the image of a violin on your head and imagine it is distorted, if the lower registers are too high, the figure of the violin will be distorted on the bottom, with a big flatulent ass.  You have to lower the volume of that driver to give the violin in your head the perfect size, shape and tone.  This has to be done for every instrument in the orchestra. 

If your reference recording, the music you are playing in order to set all the volumes right, is a girl with guitar, you will not have a clear vision of the sound of each channel you are trying to adjust and so you will be blind in most frequency ranges.  Try to adjust the shape of a violin drawing if you cannot see parts of it.  This is why our system needs to be able to play a full orchestra and why our reference recording cannot be simpler music.   If there are no instruments playing on each and every frequency range then we have no “visual” reference present in order to adjust the volume on each speaker driver.

That being said I usually play female voices after all the volumes have been readjusted just to check the response with a more familiar sound, but never readjust volumes then.  It should not be needed The voice will sound perfect and jump out at you beautifully.

With every micro level adjustment the Harmonizing Effect will be more and more present and it will be noticeable.   In the beginning of a concert or when the pianissimo is playing with few instruments you will not notice anything different, but when all the instruments come together the sound will vibrate outside the speakers with this beautiful tone in a resonating sphere like soundstage and you will be unable to leave your seating position! 

Boiling Point

This is extremely difficult to achieve, I have only got it once by accident and another time by careful approach, and lost it soon after because of unneeded re adjustments.

It is also very difficult to explain if you have never listened to it.  Above is a narration of it I made when I accidentally got it:

Going back at this narration it explains all of the above points I have been achieving one by one in order to eventually start a boiling point.  How it is done, by magically readjusting everything in an already perfectly set up system!

You can have your system on the Harmonizing effect most of the time,  but only on certain recordings and on a given day when maybe the electricity is better and your senses are relaxed the system might begin to explode in such a way.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I put this post into a separate thread as I think it has own values. There are a number of very interning thoughts in there as well as there are some moment that I would not agree. [...]

N-set wrote:

Romy the Cat wrote: I put this post into a separate thread as I think it has own values. There are a number of very interning thoughts in there as well as there are some moment that I would not agree. [...] Would be quite interesting to hear at what moments you don't agree. Confronting different views may lead to something.

Jorge wrote:

A completely flat system sounds horrible

Jorge wrote:

tweeters don’t need to call the attention of your ear, tweeters need to disappear and form part of the instrument midrange,  they need to fill in the response of the instrument at the higher levels where the midrange driver cannot go,  but don’t ever be present,  this will kill the reality feeling and destroy the sphere like soundstage.   The sound shall be of an extended midrange without the crisp highs and the ever present lows.

haralanov wrote:

My comment may look too simplistic, but it is not. The frequency response is not self contained entity, because it shows the energy balance of the Sound. So you can have flat energy balance of good Sound and you can have flat energy balance of bad sound. In both cases the sound is different, but the energy balance is the same - paradox? That is important. On the other hand, if you have irregularities of the frequency response (the so called peaks/dips) they put their own accents in the sound, so they give fake intonation when reproducing some of the notes, which destroys the original musical interpretation to some degree. So they modify the performer’s intentions in their own way. The algorithm of modifying is always the same (for a given system), no matter what the recording is. It is the same as adding sugar to everything you eat, even when you go to a fine restaurant – when you add sugar to your meal, there is no way to understand how the cooker wanted this meal to taste, so you can not understand his original intentions. It is directly related to the transparency of the original musical messages - just how unaffected you (OK, not you, but your system) can reproduce (recreate) them.

First of all let me to state that I made many many many many many experiments with listening and messing and I always came to the very same observation: with proper measuring the flat response is always preferable, not even preferable but significantly better. However, there is a lot of more to it and that “a lot of more” very much moderates the validity of the above.

First of all: we, to a degree, do not recognize with our awareness the unevenness of response. I mean we recognize it but we do not register it as something destructive that is preventing us to listen music. The destruction comes from phase anomalies not from amplitude. In most of the cases, again to a degree, we are not distracted by amplitude deviations but we distracted by the mechanisms that caused the amplitude anomalies.  If the mechanisms that caused the amplitude anomalies are in phase, have the same TTH characteristic  and the same natural reproduction nature then those amplitude anomalies might be whatever they are – they are in your way.  Hearing very easy and very painfully adapts to any natural amplitude anomalies. Haralanov of cause is very correct about his “sugar to your meal” explanation but I would add: “depends of what kind of sugar” as the sourced of food sweetness (amplitude anomalies) is the key. In one case you might have +10dB over octave, in phase and with identical TTH and it is will be hardly affecting anything. In another case you might have +.5dB over octave, with phase mismatch or with sharper TTH and it will make sound hardly listenable. So, it is not about amplitude but the way how this wrong amplitude comes to existence.

Second: flatness of response is not a goal but just an abstract base. It is like an orchestra needs to be tuned to oboe’s “A”. No one define what the “A” shall be an different orchestras tuned to “A” that is +/- 10-15Hz, sill to maintain the proper relationship to instruments, instrumental groups and even to play intentionally unturned  the played need to know where the “A” is. So, the flatness is not necessary but the system owner and the channels must know where the flatness is. Again, my experience indicates that with proper TTH balance the flatter response is always much more preferable.

Jorge wrote:

This is Romys Original descrption of the Micro Boiling response ( I think some mistake happened, because its not there anymore,  it was great) http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=14658#14658

Indeed it was strange. The Micro Boiling response was overwritten with Jorge’s text from this thread. I have no idea how it happened but my log indicated that it was done my …me on July 23. Still, I have no idea how and why. Anyhow, I have restored the original post from the Micro Boiling thread from the database backup.

haralanov wrote:

It is certainly very very important, but how many systems you have listened where you can not be able to recognize the HFs as disconnected part of the sound? I just wanted to ask if you have ever heard a system, where the sound of the tweeter is COMPLETELY part of the midrange. I know there are a lot of people who insist they integrated their tweeters perfectly, but when I visit those people, I can always identify the sound of their tweeters. When we talk of channel integration, we must be able to identify the axis where the sound comes from without hearing any parasitic sounds coming from over or under that axis. Most of the systems I have heard have their sound fixed at the tweeter axis. Yes, they sound integrated, you can even listen them at 1m away without hearing any integration artifacts, but they do not sound like seamless extended midrange - they rather sound like seamless extended HFs. Everything have taste of high frequencies, even when the level of the tweeter is not set to be higher that necessary. One of the most difficult things in audio (actually it is the most difficult of all) is to make the sound to come from the midrange channel axis, which have to "pull" the sound of the tweeter and to mix it perfectly within itself. It may take a lifetime to do this right, and sometimes lifetime is not enough… But once it is done right, most of the psychoacoustic barriers get crashed, so there is no bridge between you and the music, and the music content of the recordings injects directly in your mind, so directly, that you totally forget who you are and your mind becomes just part of the music and you even begin to feel you are composer of the reproduced music.

Yes, and no. The Mind Injection is certainly there and your run for the state of listener to become a composer of the played music is fine but why suddenly it has to have any direct association with HF? The art of tweaking listeners mind is a complicated process of electro, acoustic and psychological alchemy and the proper setting of HF is only one, very small and very significant ingredient. It is like for a person who fasts for 30 days to admit the he abstain from eating pork kindly. If one does not eat any food then what deference it makes that the person does not eat kindly?

If you look at the Jorge’s hierarchical scale then the relationship with tweeter lives at the very first level that he call “Perfect Resolution “ or at my level of Six-Leveled-Listening Benefits it would be the very first “Static perception”:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=50#50

For sure HF reproductions is difficult in audio, there are reasons for it but I think in context of this there the meaning of HF a bit exaggerated. BTW, if you would like to hear really good HF reproduced by playback then try a good gramophone with somebody who knows how to play 78s properly. There you will get HF that you will remember for very long time.

Hmmm...  Thorny, difficult topic...

The "integration" of HF certainly involves its "disappearance" - as "HF", as such - "into the soundfield". At the very least, Tone ultimately depends on this.  But there also appear to be other benefits from "getting this right".  These benefits involve a sort of "burst" effect, where the soundfield "pops open" in a way that I cannot describe at this time, but I believe this is at least part of what Haralanov refers to.  For want of better words, despite that English is my "First Language", the effect might be understood as "psycho-acoustic", since the integration of "dynamics" and tonal saturation make distinguishing the two difficult - or "unimportant" - under these circumstances.  Likewise, the idea of Image (singular) and Images ("plural") disappears as a mental "consideration" under these circumstances.  Naturally, the Total Effect requires not only "HF integration" but also "LF integration", which may partly explain why the Effect is so arresting when it occurs (ie, we are not "used to it" happening with hi-fi).  However, the Effect as Haralanov describes can be approached (and explored) by degrees without ULF, as one approaches "correct" tonal saturation, including "HF integration", and given "acceptable" alignment, etc. to support it.  While this might be explored with well-chosen "generic" paper drivers, the limits of the drivers will most certainly be tested (and probably exceeded) during the course of related experiments, as the Effect is made manifest.

To expand, once again, we are NOT talking single drivers here, although part of the aim is to capitalize and build considerably on a "similar" effect  through driver matching and integration, with the end game being the facilitating of a repeatable and sustainable "Matrix"/teleportation effect.

The above considerations are deliberately generic, and of course I cannot at this point address the effects of Exposure and Time on the Effect, since it is too new to me, in terms of hi-fi implementation of it, anyway.

With respect to "HF", I am beginning to wonder if it might be "reverse engineered", from the ground, up, if that makes sense, since lower MF and down is where all the real force has to be, and upper MF is where most hi-fi means to succeed, but doesn't.  In other words, the typical "appended tweeter" is an oxy-moron.

Paul S

Romy the Cat wrote:

Still, if the change from left image presentation to right image presentation is possible with no modification of HF then would we admin that HF has nothing to do with it?

Romy the Cat wrote:

Where I think Haralanov is right is that in context of a given playback and the given HF problem the HF might change the presentation from left to right image but it is only because the HF are basically bad

Romy the Cat wrote:

I do not think that it is accurate and I am absolutely insist that output of good tweeters shall not affect geometry of presentation in that way how Haralanov depicted.

haralanov wrote:

It is certainly very very important, but how many systems you have listened where you can not be able to recognize the HFs as disconnected part of the sound? I just wanted to ask if you have ever heard a system, where the sound of the tweeter is COMPLETELY part of the midrange. I know there are a lot of people who insist they integrated their tweeters perfectly, but when I visit those people, I can always identify the sound of their tweeters.

Jorge wrote:

Haralanov,  I guess you mean to say disconnect the tweeter on one side of your playback?  not the whole left side of the playback...

Romy the Cat wrote:

Still, the main frame of sound shall not be formed by tweeter

Romy the Cat wrote:

and this why I feel that haralanov’s illustration  above  regarding the changing of the presentation window shall not be affected by tweeter alone, at least not as much as haralanov depicted.

Romy the Cat wrote:

BTW, in the subject of integration of tweeters it is VERY important to have the TTH characteristic match between MF and tweeter, this is my few is super important and it very seldom paid attention to.

Romy the Cat wrote:

…it would be interesting to let you Haralanov to hear my installation as it is today and to hear your opinion about HF integration in today’s Macondo.

haralanov wrote:

Yes, the demonstration is the only way to know exactly what type of sound/music presentation you have in your room, I’m sure it will be very interesting and educational for me, but too bad you live on the other side of the planet... Given the fact I cannot visit your room, could you describe as much in detail as possible what happens with the sound when your switch off one of the Macondo’s stereo channels? I'm very curious to know and I’m sure I will almost hear the actual sound by just reading your descriptions (it is always the case).

I presume, in context of the conversion in this thread, you are not talking about switch off one of the Macondo’s stereo channels but rather switch off one of the Macondo’s HF channels. Some might be surprised but by turning off the Macondo’s tweeters the sound change very little but whatever difference would be is mostly in positive direction. Yes, without the tweeters Macondo has a bit more textured sound as the fine granularity of my YO186-S2 combination begin to shine through more prominently. Still, after a while this super sexy granularity become to be a bit over presented across all music and I feel a need to hold that throaty granularity slightly back. The tweeters do smear that MF texture a bit, not literally smear but rather override it to the point how I feel it to be texture – neutral.

For sure the tweeter do bring some own positive element to sound as well. It is hard to describe what they do. They for sure add transients, bite to HF, nice extension of MF overtones but the most important they produce the smooth and what I usually call “lubricated” enter and exit for mid range tones.

If you do cooking then you know about the importance of having a good cooking knifes. Well, a good knife is not truly important and if you are good cook then you are good cook with any knife but for a sake of association let discard the cooking art and let look only at the quality of knives, not even the knives but rather the knives sharpening.  The badly sharpen knife is your basic MF. That knife of cause can cut meet and veritable. However, then you begin to sharpen your knife and use better quality knives and you realize the cutting the same pork might be almost a pleasure as you shell not exhibit any cutting pressure but rather juts move your hand what you would like it to go and the good night will do the job itself.

The HF, if they compliment MF properly, do the same job – they create proper, more natural, more auditably-palatable entry and exit for MF into auditable space. They sort of the lubricate the MF and make MF it interact with room more naturally and more discriminatively.

Saying all of it I have to note that in my care my HF are very complex as they are not only efforts of MF and HF driver but also the efforts of Injection Channels that is good 2 feet ways with all negative consequences of lobbing and many other mean things. Still, if it did not work then I would not use it and all together it somehow works fine in my estimation.

BTW, If someone would ask me what is the main aspect of proper HF integration then I would name properly sounding electricity at the very top list of my priorities…