View Full Version : What happened to the High Fidelity oath?
Using a file based system the oath goes like this.
(For other media insert as appropriate.)
I swear to reproduce the file, the whole file and nothing but the file so help me listener.
Some recent comments regarding full range drivers and many of the posts I’ve read over the time I’ve been at AoS have finally prompted me to ask the above question. I can’t help get the impression that High Fidelity in its strictest sense is no longer the goal for many audiophiles.
There are literally thousands of examples of why I think audiophiles may be straying away from seeking the truth and becoming more interested in what makes for a comfortable listening experience.
I read occasionally a description of the ideal amplifier for example as a straight wire with gain. The ideal Dac should be completely neutral. The ideal speaker give a completely flat response over the audible frequency band etc etc.
Any deviation from the above criteria cannot be the truth and therefore not High Fidelity by definition.
Yet, we have posts praising equipment tuned by ear, or descriptions of equipment that sound radically different from each other, speakers that can’t reproduce what’s on the media, cables change the sound of the system for better or worse; I won’t go on, I’m sure you’ve got the idea.
Obviously if an audible change is detectable then one or the other, or maybe both, can’t be the truth.
So, are today’s audiophiles still interested in High Fidelity or have they come to accept that this is unobtainable and settle for what pleases them most?
brian2957
23-01-2014, 10:53
I've got to ask John , why would you want an uncomfortable listening experience . Don't get me wrong , I've heard this in my own and other peoples systems . I've been doing this hifi thing for over 30 years now and , within my bubget certainly , true ' high fidelity ' is indeed unobtainable IMO . So now I tailor my system to suit my own particular tastes . I tend to think that music is something to relax to , so I lean towards a warmer more relaxed type of sound . I've tried all sorts of gear and still default back to this type of sound .
Even though my sources are digital they have been 'modified ' to produce a gentler , less fatiguing SQ. Guess I can't describe myself as an audiophile any more then :)
Hi John,
I hope it's not to cool in Spain while you wait for the Spring. :)
My take on high fidelity has changed as technology has improved. Way back, ie the 50s and 60s there was a greater departure from fidelity than we have today. Some of the kit from that era stacks up really well today but some doesn't. Even kit today which you may regard as not being high fidelity enough will be very high fidelity when compared with the norms when the term was coined.
My view is that the term hifi is outdated and might as well be consigned to scrapheap as what hifi means to most people (eg Bose) is not what we believe it means.
it is possible to be an audiophile and not be interested in hi-fidelity, the two are not mutually exclusive. For me, with digital I aim for hi-fidelity, with vinyl I aim for somethign I like the sound of. Not everyone wants that straight from the desk sound, I can appreciate that. But that is 'hi-fidelity' in the strictest meaning of the words.
mr sneff
23-01-2014, 12:46
I have to say I'm more interested in music than hi fi, other than as a means to an end - an enjoyable listening experience, and I don't remember signing any pledge or swearing any oath. How do we know what is "truth" anyway? What we're listening to is a reproduction, not an actual performance. Mostly, unless it's a warts and all live recording the notion of a performance is illusory anyway. On many modern multitrack recordings not all the musicians recorded their parts at the same time and not necessarily in the same studio or even the same continent. Add in studio effect, reverb and so on and you have the illusion of a performance and a possibly convincing soundstage. And even classical recordings are made in a number of 'takes' and the best are edited together. What you're describing as the ideal 'a straight wire with gain', etc is an aspiration rather than a reality, even if a loudspeaker with a totally flat frequency response was possible that makes no allowance for the contribution made by the room
The 'truth' is the recording on the disc or the file. How it was made is irrelevant.
if i play that recording back and a add a bit of bass boost with my graphic equaliser (cause i like bass) then that is not pursuing 'hi-fidelity'. if I do my best to play it back ensuring all equipment is as accurate and colour free as possible then that is the 'pursuit of hi-fidelity'.
However there was no oath taken so we are all free to float our own boats :)
As an ex full range user and a high efficiency mulitiway user now, i think its all about what we hear..
Not many people are able to listen to a system and explian why and what is not quite as it should be.
Im still learning that art and still regularly manage to discover new to me aspects of reproduction
Full range speakers are very wide band speakers, they tend in general to be better at producing transients (Higher acceleration factors) and can sound more lifelike.
They are generally more efficient and as a result of being wide band, generally have more peaks, but there are, in my opinion, much more serious issues than peaks with sound reproduction.
And as far as peaks go there are electrical and mechanical ways of overcoming these, well implemented full ranger drivers can result in a lifelike reproduction, and generally have the advantage of the extra efficiency.
in use most are 'mechanical' 3 way speakers with a single voice coil.
You sort of give the impression you are living with accuracy and full range users are not..which i find a little surprising (especially after reading your signature), when in effect we are all listerning to what is our systems version of accuracy,
The 'truth' is the recording on the disc or the file. How it was made is irrelevant.
if i play that recording back and a add a bit of bass boost with my graphic equaliser (cause i like bass) then that is not pursuing 'hi-fidelity'. if I do my best to play it back ensuring all equipment is as accurate and colour free as possible then that is the 'pursuit of hi-fidelity'.
However there was no oath taken so we are all free to float our own boats :)
+1
the aim of all good hifi should be to produce exactly what is on the file or disc, no more, no less, with good resolution. If we then wish to add colouration to account for poor recordings or in room response issues, then we are free to do that to our heart's content as it wont affect the hifi credentials of the kit we use. I cannot understand the logic behind any argument which places colouration by design as an acceptable goal. That's not "high fidelity" and in some cases, it's not "fidelity" at all. There are manufacturers (no names) who openly boast about how their kit is designed to have a "house sound" (other than faithful to the recording) or is deliberately coloured because in certain circumstances, it can sound great (mostly it may not though...). That's not High Fidelity.
Whether someone likes deliberate colouration is another matter entirely. As Martin says, we're all free to "float our own boats" and no-one can tell us what to like sound-wise. They can only suggest what might or might not be accurate. To some, that doesn't matter.
Hi John,
I can see where this one is heading (and we've been here before)....!
There are literally thousands of examples of why I think audiophiles may be straying away from seeking the truth and becoming more interested in what makes for a comfortable listening experience.
Well, first of all, as others have said, obtaining enjoyment from the experience of listening to one's favourite music is, first and foremost, the most important goal for any music lover, who happens to own a decent 'stereo' (note that such an individual may have rather different desires and goals from that of an 'audiophile')... ;)
At the end of the day, however, if the experience of listening to music doesn't provide pleasure to the listener (due to him or her hearing a sound that isn't enjoyable), then what is the point of the exercise?
The above becomes even more relevant when you embrace the fact that no hi-fi system is perfect, and often what we consider as 'high-fidelity sound' is no more than a combination of distortions which appeases our preferences. The notion of any genuine 'truth' is but a pipedream.
I read occasionally a description of the ideal amplifier for example as a straight wire with gain. The ideal Dac should be completely neutral. The ideal speaker give a completely flat response over the audible frequency band etc etc.
Any deviation from the above criteria cannot be the truth and therefore not High Fidelity by definition.
Such goals are admirable, providing that the end results are enjoyable to listen to. Listening to music, after all, should be a pleasurable exercise, unless one bizarrely derives more satisfaction from anally analysing 'sound'...
Furthermore, those goals are also based on the premise that such sonically 'transparent'/unfailingly accurate equipment exists. Experience suggests that it currently doesn't, and that all equipment (due to its inherent distortion characteristics) imparts its own 'sonic signature', to some degree, on the music signal. Therefore, until such truly transparent equipment exists, all we're left with is the ability to choose our own 'favoured flavour' of distortion.
Yet, we have posts praising equipment tuned by ear, or descriptions of equipment that sound radically different from each other, speakers that can’t reproduce what’s on the media, cables change the sound of the system for better or worse; I won’t go on, I’m sure you’ve got the idea.
Well, when you accept the fact that no piece of equipment, speaker or cable is currently capable of 100% faithfully reproducing the input signal (and that what we are listening to on our systems, with recorded music, is essentially an illusion, although certain illusions created are more convincing than others), then the reality is that we assemble our systems based on achieving a sound that most accurately replicates what we consider as 'real'.
That is also where 'voicing by ear' comes in...
This is simply because if an equipment designer, through having an acute and innate sense of how real voices and instruments sound, can 'tune' his or her equipment (through judiciously selecting the correct combination of circuit topology and components), and create a convincing illusion of that sound (thus suspending disbelief in the listener), then said equipment stands a good chance of being appreciated by others with similar ideas of what sounds 'real' - and in a way, IME, that can often escape equipment produced solely (or mainly) via measurement, simply because I don't consider that everything that we can genuinely hear, in relation to audio, can currently be measured.
Therefore, often the most 'musical' sounding equipment is created when the designer concerned has a more passionate love and intrinsic understanding of what makes music 'tick', and can produce that in a circuit, than his or her use of their test equipment!
Now cue the usual 'objectivist vs. subjectivist'/vinyl vs. digital circular debate (which is essentially what this thread is about)....
Marco.
I don't remember taking any oath. Is this some sort of Masonic thing?
Perhaps a more accurate term for what is being discussed here is True Fidelity... I'm more or less happy where I am, or at least I will be once my DM2's are sorted and seeing as I can no longer get out to live concerts I have no basis for comparison, thankfully ;)
kenworthy100
23-01-2014, 16:26
The main element for me is a system that provides enjoyable and listenable music within the constrains of my room and environment. Whether that falls within the rather legal sounding pledge in the first post I wouldn't have a clue. All I can say is that after a hard day I can play a cd or download, sit in a comfy chair and thoroughly enjoy the music.
I don't remember taking any oath. Is this some sort of Masonic thing?
What, you haven't learnt the secret handshake??? Philistine... :lol:
I guess times change from a idealistic view point to one based on reality. In the end we end with a system based on our own perception of the truth
At the end of day of the day its about enjoying the music
I guess times change from a idealistic view point to one based on reality. In the end we end with a system based on our own perception of the truth...
Precisely (as that's all that is currently possible), unless you believe that our presently accepted measurement parameters tell all and have created the perfectly 'transparent' hi-fi system, which I'd suggest is no more than wishful thinking on the part of those who obsess over oscilloscopes and can't live without 'certainty'! ;)
Marco.
Oldpinkman
23-01-2014, 18:38
I guess times change from a idealistic view point to one based on reality. In the end we end with a system based on our own perception of the truth
At the end of day of the day its about enjoying the music
Just noticed the Rodrigo y Gabriella. I hope you get to enjoy the truth according to the gospel of DaCapo of that recording on Saturday. I'll tie a knot in my hanky to bring it. ;)
Nope, there was no oath and I’m happy to state that no secret handshakes are necessary.
The truth is of course in this instance as others have noted whatever is on the chosen media.
When I first got into Hi Fi (Hi Fi is a hobby and isn’t necessarily related to my enjoyment of music) the goal was for the enthusiasts I knew to reproduce as faithfully as possible what was on the media. Digital recording studios hadn’t become the norm and audio enthusiasts had record players and tape machines. Some systems got closer than others. We read the various electronic journals of the day, viewed the increasingly popular Hi Fi magazines with deep skepticism and learnt how solder and built our own kit. I dare say many of my generation are now the designers of much of the non mainstream kit many of us now value and prefer.
At some point and I’m not exactly sure when but a bit before I gave up vinyl (I’ve been clearing out and dug out my old Decca London Gold cartridge which brought on a burst of nostalgia) I resigned myself to the conclusion that absolute fidelity to the media was virtually impossible. Even if one could make or afford equipment that got close to true transparency (I feckin hate that term) then the room the system played in would make a mess of the sound so what was the point. My interest in audio reproduction stayed with me and when I went digital I set about trying to learn a bit about that.
Digital equipment I would argue has developed at an astounding rate. I am constantly being pleasantly surprised by its abilities to tailor sound and dismayed by the abuse this often leads to
I’ve listened to a fair number of pre and post studio mixes over the past few years and had the opportunity to see and hear what can be done with digital mixing equipment. anyone who has spent a bit of time playing with one of the pro DA converters will have a good idea of just how powerful these machines have become. The ability to manipulate audio in such a manner used to require racks of kit, now you can get a fully fledge mixer on a USB stick thanks to the ubiquitous computer.
There are now some very good room correction programs and other programs still under development that will allow astounding levels of fine tuning audio that could be used to compensate for playback equipment anomalies, or if one wished, tailor an audio file to sound like tape or vinyl for examples.
Perhaps, if the audiophile community isn’t too entrenched the pursuit of true audio fidelity isn’t such a pipe dream after all.
Hello Brian.
Because I want to hear what’s on the media and quite often given current recording practice it isn’t that pleasant to listen to.
Hello Clive.
I wish I could write that it’s sunny and warm but it isn’t. Next week will be better apparently but its still bloody cold at night up here in the hills.
Honestly Marco, you crack me up. What are you like?
Lol - always pleased to entertain! :D
Marco.
brian2957
23-01-2014, 20:58
Good to hear from you John , hope life ( and music ) is good to you mate :D
walpurgis
23-01-2014, 21:18
I don't know about High Fidelity Oaths, but 'Rule One' is 'There Are No rules'. Each to their own and do and choose whatever you like and use it in any way that suits you.
I'm not sure equipment has to measure flat. That tells you little about what something may sound like. Seventies KEF speakers were tailored to have as flat a response as possible within their frequency response envelope and to me that's how they sounded, a little flat! Decca cartridges have a very flat measured response and somehow they don't give that impression on hearing. Some very fine sounding gear can have departures from level in response.
The idea that high fidelity is based on obtaining a 'perfect' reproduction of recorded music ignores the subjective nature of listening enjoyment i.e. what sounds good to me may not sound good to someone else. If it weren't a subjective matter none of us would need to audition a range of hifi components in order to get a system that pleases us.
The idea that speakers should give a flat uncoloured response is interesting. I have a small recording studio and one of the most important aspects of recording, mixing etc is to get as flat a response from studio monitors as possible in order to ensure that the mix is properly balanced. Having achieved what I think is a good mix I then listen to it on a range of music reproduction systems including my domestic Sonos powered system, a Pro-ject CD Box, and a bog standard £30 boom box from Philips. A good mix has to sound reasonable on all these systems and that inevitably involves compromises. My point is that it's a rare thing to get a recording that hasn't been tweaked or coloured in the first place so the reality is that unless you have access to the original master recordings of your favourite music what you're hearing is necessarily compromised and that's where the colouration introduced by your audiophile hifi comes in. Components are tuned to sound good, but what we hear is the designer / engineers idea of good. We influence it by the combination of the components we use to obtain a sound which gives us musical pleasure. Simples!
Hi Trevor,
I totally agree! However...
Components are tuned to sound good, but what we hear is the designer / engineers idea of good...
...indeed, but only if our systems are transparent enough/have sufficient resolution to allow us to hear the engineer's idea of good. That would then be true high-fidelity, as we would be hearing *exactly* what was on the recording.
The reality is, what we're hearing is an interpretation of the above, as 'edited' by the individual sonic abilities and distortion characteristics of our systems. However, with the right kit, optimally set-up by a discerning and experienced listener, you can get pretty close! :)
Marco.
Hi Marco
I absolutely agree with you, but I would add the following with the regard to true high fidelity. The current trend for remixing / remastering classic Lp's form the 70's is probably the best opportunity we will ever have to hear the music as it was intended to sound. Technology is providing a golden opportunity. The work of Steven Wilson and Robert Fripp on King Crimson's albums is a good example of this. Their remixes lift a veil from the original versions - the album Red is a brilliant example of this. Those of us with transparent high quality systems are getting an opportunity to hear today what the band intended us to hear 40 years ago. the caveat to all this is of course the slightly sinister trend for record companies to constantly reissue new 'improved' versions of albums e.g. there have been at least 7 remixed / remastered versions of Close To The Edge released (I know, I've got them all!!). At least in the case of King Crimson Robert Fripp's involvement should protect us from such blatant cashing in on fans' need to have the best / latest version of a bands music.
Oldpinkman
24-01-2014, 15:44
The idea that high fidelity is based on obtaining a 'perfect' reproduction of recorded music ignores the subjective nature of listening enjoyment i.e. what sounds good to me may not sound good to someone else. If it weren't a subjective matter none of us would need to audition a range of hifi components in order to get a system that pleases us.
The idea that speakers should give a flat uncoloured response is interesting. I have a small recording studio and one of the most important aspects of recording, mixing etc is to get as flat a response from studio monitors as possible in order to ensure that the mix is properly balanced. Having achieved what I think is a good mix I then listen to it on a range of music reproduction systems including my domestic Sonos powered system, a Pro-ject CD Box, and a bog standard £30 boom box from Philips. A good mix has to sound reasonable on all these systems and that inevitably involves compromises. My point is that it's a rare thing to get a recording that hasn't been tweaked or coloured in the first place so the reality is that unless you have access to the original master recordings of your favourite music what you're hearing is necessarily compromised and that's where the colouration introduced by your audiophile hifi comes in. Components are tuned to sound good, but what we hear is the designer / engineers idea of good. We influence it by the combination of the components we use to obtain a sound which gives us musical pleasure. Simples!
Sort of. There is an implication here that every recorded source is tweaked the same. So we pick a system which "colours" to our tastes. The problem is there is a lot of variation on the tweaks different engineers and studios put on the material, and we can only have one "personal colour". 70's CBS was bright and sibillant. Early Genesis Chrysalis recordings dull and muffled. Personally I am a big fan of Alan Parsons production (we used the DSOM master tape at PT), and that would be my reference. A clear example of "engineer colour" was Kate Bush in her Linn phase (Hounds of Love was the one I remember, but there were a couple of others in this phase of hers - when she was using Linn Saras as studio masters). And every bit as much variation in classical recordings and labels.
So many of us, me included, like the idea that our equipment takes what it was given and doesn't change it. "Hi - Fidelity (to the source)". Of course, that is a subjective assessment of Hi Fidelity, but it seems to me a reasonable goal. It is rather easier to assess when evaluating sources rather than speakers. you can compare a studio master to a record player and see which is most similar. With speakers you are trying to compare to a real sound - and almost inevitably a memory of one, and that is subject to the way the speakers interact with the room. But in principal, you want a recording of Mrs S as soloist for the Paddock Wood Choral society singing Mozarts Kyrie in St Andrews Church to sound in your living room like it did in the church.
So ideally, as part of HiFi you want the engineer to capture the acoustics of the church with its airy warm vibrant sound, and you want your speakers to reproduce those in the room you are in. And in picking the speakers in the room you make the assumption that the engineer did his bit. Even though often, manifestly, he didn't! But to try to second-guess what the next engineer is going to do and deliberately choose "compensating fidelity" instead of "hi fidelity" is too tricky for me to get my head round.
I plug away at HiFi and accept some recordings (Gabrielle Aplin is a recent one that springs to mind) will sound shit.
:cool:
Hi Richard,
Sort of. There is an implication here that every recorded source is tweaked the same. So we pick a system which "colours" to our tastes.
Some may do that intentionally, in order to obtain a sound that they like. However, regardless of that, the equipment will do that itself, to varying degrees, depending on how accurate it is. I'm afraid that's the nature of the beast, and so ALL systems colour the sound in some way.
You can minimise the effect, but it can never be fully eradicated, lest you've discovered, by some miracle, the (currently impossible): a 100% accurate and truly transparent hi-fi system, which of course is a no-no... Therefore, one can only embrace and accept the reality, and enjoy what we've got! :)
Marco.
I don't think I implied that all engineers / producers tweak recordings in the same way, or that we are 'second guessing' what they will do to the next recording. What I was trying to say is that because the producers / engineers are trying to produce a recording that sounds good on a range of music systems from radio (analogue and digital) through TV to high end audio, what we get as a consumer is compromised (e.g. compression is introduced into the process to allow peaks in volume without distortion). Audio is a subjective experience which means we'll all have different ideas about what sounds good and that's what makes hifi such a fascinating, all consuming hobby:)
A few years ago, the Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions LP was a reference recording for judging a range of hifi components. The recording captured a live concert in a church and managed to convey the atmosphere and ambience of the venue using a single Calrec Ambisonic Microphone. For me, this LP is a good way to judge how good a hifi sounds particularly with regard to transparency and the ability to reproduce the soundstage. At the other end of the spectrum is Patti Smith's Wave. The production is so dense and so much compression has been used it makes it almost unlistenable for me and yet it's only hit single Frederick sounded superb on the radio.
Sort of. There is an implication here that every recorded source is tweaked the same. So we pick a system which "colours" to our tastes. The problem is there is a lot of variation on the tweaks different engineers and studios put on the material, and we can only have one "personal colour". 70's CBS was bright and sibillant. Early Genesis Chrysalis recordings dull and muffled. Personally I am a big fan of Alan Parsons production (we used the DSOM master tape at PT), and that would be my reference. A clear example of "engineer colour" was Kate Bush in her Linn phase (Hounds of Love was the one I remember, but there were a couple of others in this phase of hers - when she was using Linn Saras as studio masters). And every bit as much variation in classical recordings and labels.
So many of us, me included, like the idea that our equipment takes what it was given and doesn't change it. "Hi - Fidelity (to the source)". Of course, that is a subjective assessment of Hi Fidelity, but it seems to me a reasonable goal. It is rather easier to assess when evaluating sources rather than speakers. you can compare a studio master to a record player and see which is most similar. With speakers you are trying to compare to a real sound - and almost inevitably a memory of one, and that is subject to the way the speakers interact with the room. But in principal, you want a recording of Mrs S as soloist for the Paddock Wood Choral society singing Mozarts Kyrie in St Andrews Church to sound in your living room like it did in the church.
So ideally, as part of HiFi you want the engineer to capture the acoustics of the church with its airy warm vibrant sound, and you want your speakers to reproduce those in the room you are in. And in picking the speakers in the room you make the assumption that the engineer did his bit. Even though often, manifestly, he didn't! But to try to second-guess what the next engineer is going to do and deliberately choose "compensating fidelity" instead of "hi fidelity" is too tricky for me to get my head round.
I plug away at HiFi and accept some recordings (Gabrielle Aplin is a recent one that springs to mind) will sound shit.
:cool:
Trouble is Richard that in making such assumptions I think you're complicating things too much hence it's hard to get your head round "the answer". What the recording engineer actually has or hasn't done for any particular recording is largely irrelevant when setting standards for replay kit including speakers. The standard is that the kit should ideally be designed to read the information off the file, disc or LP and reproduce that without adding anything in or taking anything away (your flat response which neither introduces lift nor rolls frequencies off, plus phase and tonal accuracy, plus low distortion). Even when this is achieved, at best it's a facsimile of the real thing or the real thing never existed in the first place (for most studio mixed music) so unless you happen to be at the studio or live event to hear the real thing, you never have a correct point of reference anyway. At least with trying to assemble gear that matches the criteria highlighted above, you have a fighting chance, on average, of hitting somewhere close to the mark, well at least it should sound decent with a well mastered and recorded piece.
The main obstacle to ever getting close is often the room acoustics and the speakers chosen for the room. Between them, they throw up more inaccuracies, phase distortion, frequency reinforcement at certain points and suck-out at other points than anything else in the chain. Get the room as sorted as possible within acceptable domestic limitations, choose appropriate reasonable quality speakers and that's about as much as you can hope for on the accuracy side of things. The room will affect scale. To do big scale, you do really need a big room to avoid the problems associated with putting large drivers into a tiny room. Smaller speakers these days may reproduce low bass frequencies, but at nowhere near the energy of large speakers, so to do real scale justice you have to think big. That tends to be the limiting factor for most rooms and most wallets. Decent large speakers tend to cost big money.
For most of us, being satisfied with a sound that we like is good enough and we soon learn to compromise on scale. If we didn't, then few of us would bother spending much on hifi and save the money for "real" music events. That's why irrespective of standards for "high" or "true" fidelity, it largely becomes purely subjective on grounds of budget, sound and looks. Its still a good and necessary goal though for manufacturers to aim for certain technical standards.
Yeah, well, but.
Lets say the appreciation of fine art is a subjective experience. If you liked a particular picture (forget about how the artist made it) would you get your paint box out and colour in the bits you thought needed touching up?
To me the whole point of a Hi Fi is to reproduce the media as accurately as possible.
This is what High Fidelity means.
What interests me is, I suspect for a lot of audiophiles the objective to accurately reproduce what is on the media, good or bad, has become of secondary importance. In effect some audiophiles wish to get their paint boxes out.
I accept that all replay equipment will alter the sound to a greater or lesser extent, but it seems for some audiophiles having a pleasant listening experience is more important than having an accurate rendition of the original.
Two separate mediums John
The only thing that can be accurate is the actual event
For instance I like a lot of scale and tight dynamics a lot of people like a softer approach to music
julesd68
24-01-2014, 17:21
for some audiophiles having a pleasant listening experience is more important than having an accurate rendition of the original.
I'm struggling with this issue a bit at the moment - my hybrid amp makes just about all music enjoyable - I guess the valve pre-amp side of it seems to smooth out a lot of imperfections in the recording quality of the source ... The solid state amp I have is much more neutral and fussy about the source material. With the right source material it knocks spots off the hybrid in different ways, but at other times it feels just a bit too revealing for my liking.
See, you're looking at the bigger picture, try zooming in a bit and what you've written works John. If a snare drum sounds convincing then grand, likewise a 12 string acoustic guitar, a Fender Jazz bass etc, etc, etc... Now that makes more sense to me as we haven't a cat in hells chance of comparing what comes out of our squawk boxes with what the engineer heard when the artist laid down the tracks...
and that's why live music and real instruments being played is my ultimate reference point
Its all about the illusion of the real thing
walpurgis
24-01-2014, 20:44
we haven't a cat in hells chance of comparing what comes out of our squawk boxes with what the engineer heard when the artist laid down the tracks...
Ah, but if you were using Tannoys.................. :eyebrows:
I accept that all replay equipment will alter the sound to a greater or lesser extent, but it seems for some audiophiles having a pleasant listening experience is more important than having an accurate rendition of the original.
And why shouldn't they feel that way, John? For some reason you seem to have rather a bee in your bonnet about this matter... :scratch:
It's not how I choose to do things with my own system (as far as possible I always strive to achieve the greatest fidelity from recordings), but if someone wants to connect a graphic equaliser, and boost the bass, or use a warm sounding pair of speakers, in order to tailor the sound to be more acceptable to them, then why not?
If by doing so, it encourages them to listen to more music, then that can only be a good thing. If folk want to 'get their paint boxes out', so to speak, then good luck to them!
At the end of the day, what's more important: forensically analysing sound, and continually striving to achieve some unobtainable goal, or just relaxing and enjoying music?? I suspect that for most people here, being a music lover is rather more important than adhering to some 'High Fidelity oath'.
Marco.
I think I understand what John is getting it. I would take it further.
Forget the format: they are just carriers. First the studio format, be it analogue master tape or ADC digital stores. Secondly the domestic format, be it vinyl, CD, SACD or digital file. I really don't care.
I want my playback to sound exactly like the feed from the mixing desk. Nothing more or less.
The enjoyment, for me, comes with the knowledge that it sounds closest to either the live performance or that which the studio creators intended. For classical or acoustic ensemble, I can judge it directly from concert experiences. The rest benefits from the same setup. I don't tune my system for niceness; I tune it for accuracy.
Lodgesound
24-01-2014, 22:58
Interesting thread this..................what is most interesting is the perception of high fidelity sound and what it actually constitutes.
For folk here who have been allowed to sit in a mastering room - and maybe to even use one - they will have what is maybe a perception of what they believe a "standard" for overall sound quality in a recording.
Mastering was really about one thing - standardisation and uniformity. I say was because things have changed greatly now.
What Marco says I wholeheartedly agree with............basically if you find a listening experience with a particular system unpleasant then honestly just either adjust it to taste or buy a system that pleases your ears. It really is that simple.
There were and still are standards which broadcasters and studios adhere to - in the past they were extremely rigid and were relatively well applied as there were few facilities where materials could be mastered for release to the public on vinyl record, cassette or CD and nearly all commercial artists used these.
Again bear in mind that the process was all about standardisation - getting the most from the recordings concerned with a hopefully even balance and good range. If destined for vinyl cutting compression HAD to be applied - this was so that when a musician on the recording banged on a drum hard your stylus was not hurled vertically out of the groove and into a different one.
Such compression produced a very pleasing effect - namely the "warmth" you hear and experience on vinyl replay. Make no mistake though - the recordings of old that your lovely records were made from had a dynamic range way in excess of what ended up on your vinyl.
Nowadays such standards are in such decline as to be virtually non-existent. I despair at "plug-ins" that are designed to mimic the sound of analogue tape machines. If you want the sound of analogue tape then buy a machine and master onto it - and not some domestic toy either! Studio recorders were complex devices designed for use by engineers in professional environments. The number of folk I encounter who purchase such machines and then ask how to line it up to this or that standard - it's very simple - read the manual, buy the required test and monitoring equipment (which you would of course would you not as you will be running the machine in a professional environment) and just follow the procedures. Even the machines I exhibit at Scalford require that I have some test and metering equipment to hand as I have to calibrate the machine's replay electronics and mechanics for each tape loaded.
Consider this the studio tape machine equivalent of dusting your records before you play them.
Anyway my point here is to just buy a system that you enjoy listening to and that gives you the most aural pleasure possible - this may be from machinery costing anything from £80 to £800 000............it really is down to what gives you the listener the most pleasure.
There are no absolutes - it is all about pleasure.
I want my playback to sound exactly like the feed from the mixing desk. Nothing more or less.
So do I, dude, but in reality, once you've done all you can attempting to achieve that goal, the equipment (and especially speakers/room) will spoil the illusion by rather rudely superimposing their inherent distortion characteristics/sonic signature on proceedings...
Marco.
once you've done all you can attempting to achieve that goal, the equipment (and especially speakers/room) spoil the illusion by rather rudely superimposing their inherent distortion characteristics/sonic signature on proceedings.
Well of course, no system is perfect. However, I've stated a goal which I believe conforms to the notion of 'high fidelity', i.e. the closest approach to the sound of the real thing. Reducing the system distortions and sonic signature is the challenge. Nowhere in this have I used the word 'nice'.
We're essentially singing from the same hymn sheet.
However, let me put it this way...
If forced to choose between two systems, which would you have: one that was fundamentally accurate to the source signal, but which you struggled to enjoy on a musical level, or one that was marginally less accurate, in that respect, but which put a big smile on your face and lit up your pleasure senses every time you pressed the 'play' button?
For me, it'd be the second one every time, as ultimately I'm much more of a music lover than an audiophile, and so the primary purpose of my system is to provide me with pleasure, much more than it serves as merely being a tool with which to analyse sound, or fret about fidelity.
Marco.
jandl100
25-01-2014, 07:36
I want my playback to sound exactly like the feed from the mixing desk. Nothing more or less.
...... I don't tune my system for niceness; I tune it for accuracy.
Well of course, no system is perfect. However, I've stated a goal which I believe conforms to the notion of 'high fidelity', i.e. the closest approach to the sound of the real thing.
Interesting thoughts on this thread!
I think the two statements above often contradict each other, in practise.
Replicating the sound from the mixing desk and achieving the closest approach to the real thing are not always (I would argue seldom) the same thing.
Why this belief that the recording engineer (and his kit) are perfect? :scratch:
So often, it just ain't so. :nono:
What I want to replicate is the sound of the music in the original venue, to capture what the musicians were doing, not what the sound engineer was doing.
To honour the musicians' intent rather than the engineers' ability (or lack thereof) to capture it.
Of course, going down this tack it all gets horribly subjective and gharstly things like Linn Sondek turntables and Tannoy DC speakers can result! :eyebrows:
jandl100
25-01-2014, 08:02
... as one example of where my thoughts lead --->
As I type this I am listening to Sibelius' 4th symphony over a pair of Grado 325i headphones. They have an unmistakable lift in the treble that makes listening quite unpleasant, they are not tonally 'flat' by any means. But they have excellent resolution and a wonderful way of tracking dynamic changes in the music that makes the listening experience really come alive.
So - what to do? - What I do is feed the signal thru my Sony ESD1000 pre-amp / equalizer - shave 3dB or so off the top end and all is very well indeed with my musical world! :thumbsup:
-- yes, the manipulations of the Sony's circuit do dilute the liveness of the sound a bit, but I am left with a vastly superior and more realistic listening experience compared to the un-equalized replay. I retain most of the dynamic liveness and transparency of the Grados, but with a more realistic (and pleasant) tonal balance.
jandl100
25-01-2014, 08:46
I'm not sure equipment has to measure flat. That tells you little about what something may sound like. Seventies KEF speakers were tailored to have as flat a response as possible within their frequency response envelope and to me that's how they sounded, a little flat! Decca cartridges have a very flat measured response and somehow they don't give that impression on hearing. Some very fine sounding gear can have departures from level in response.
Flat, as in tonally accurate.
Well, that's an important attribute. But it's only one important attribute. Seems to me that the objective/measurement brigade regard it as the ONLY attribute that is important.
But tonal accuracy is a static thing. Music also flows in time, and it is that aspect that brings music alive imho. The ability to track small and large dynamic changes - the 'rise time' of the item under consideration, if you like.
I think that's more important than the ultimate tonal accuracy when it comes to reproducing music. And is very hard to achieve - based on my observation that most hifi is boring! Densen has it right in their slogan - life's too short for boring hifi! :lol:
There's a danger here that it is assumed almost divisive top be either "one or the other" and an assumption that one cannot be both objective AND subjectively able to say what one likes or doesn't like. Its a dangerous assumption because it simply isn't true. One can have a foot in both camps. This "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" type of thing that people come across so often in forums is plain daft and closed-minded. There has to be and IS a place for objectivity/measurements as the kit doesn't design itself, so a high degree of knowledge is needed however irksome and "in the way" that might be :lol: That knowledge has to be applied for best results to accepted standards, just as John is suggesting but John's point I think is that subjectivity on its own is a poor benchmark for design and manufacture.
The end result especially where speakers are concerned, can tell you whether you like or dislike the sound, and many manufacturers take on board comments by listening panels, re-examine the maths and see if changes are needed. Often it's simply a case of theory needing a helping hand into reality usually because the parts or the sum of the parts does not behave as expected. Subjective assessment can be very helpful in such circumstances but always in the context of what is actually happening (measurements). To suggest otherwise is to suggest all standards should be dropped or that designers haven't got a clue about how something sounds, which is the polar opposite of the truth. We all have ears and all of us are more than capable of making our own subjective assessments.
The business about Jerry's comment that music also "flows in time" is valid, again especially with loudspeaker design as the human brain is sensitive to some timing (phase) issues which again are most obvious with the transducer side of things (cartridges and speakers) where poor driver integration or phase lag (including Group Delay of bass) is very notable. To get close to the real thing is going to be possible but we will never get there because of the physical constraints of the medium we are listening to. We can get mighty close in some regards and that for most of us I suspect is close enough. How we choose to tune sound for our own hearing is another factor. People with hearing problems (especially rolled off treble) may need a lift in treble to hear the same thing as those with perfect hearing listening to something with a flat frequency response. Since our hearing and rooms are all different, this aspect of music reproduction will always be the bit that may need to be tailored to personal tastes, or where we simply prefer colouration in our music however far from high fidelity that may be. Whatever; The starting point has to be a well defined standard if we're to get close to what we want.
If forced to choose between two systems, which would you have: one that was fundamentally accurate to the source signal, but which you struggled to enjoy on a musical level, or one that was marginally less accurate, in that respect, but which put a big smile on your face and lit up your pleasure senses every time you pressed the 'play' button.
I can't answer that question as you've stated it, Marco. To me, the system which is more fundamentally accurate to the signal will always allow me to enjoy the music more. Highly transparent, 'open window' systems have always been the ones that put a smile on my face, even if the recording is a challenging one. I have never found a system to be improved by removing more of the signal or adding distortion.
Replicating the sound from the mixing desk and achieving the closest approach to the real thing are not always (I would argue seldom) the same thing.
Why this belief that the recording engineer (and his kit) are perfect?
I have no such belief, Jerry. However, in any given recording the output from the desk is the best I can achieve as I find I cannot normally recall the band/orchestra and record it properly myself! Therefore I want that replay quality, unadulterated by the delivery formats and replay chain, in my listening room.
There's a danger here that it is assumed almost divisive top be either "one or the other" and an assumption that one cannot be both objective AND subjectively able to say what one likes or doesn't like. Its a dangerous assumption because it simply isn't true. One can have a foot in both camps.
That's got it perfectly for me, Paul.
I want my system to get out of the way, to reproduce the signal without adding or removing anything. However, I don't achieve that aim by measurement because measurements miss so much of what is going on (one example: the notion that CD is more dynamic than vinyl because of the measured dynamic range; yet vinyl sounds more dynamic to my ears). I use subjective listening to achieve my objective aims!
jandl100
25-01-2014, 10:13
The business about Jerry's comment that music also "flows in time" is valid, again especially with loudspeaker design as the human brain is sensitive to some timing (phase) issues which again are most obvious with the transducer side of things (cartridges and speakers) where poor driver integration or phase lag (including Group Delay of bass) is very notable.
Well, I wasn't really talking about phase issues (I think ... maybe I was!) but about transient speed. So many components simply cannot capture a reasonable facsimile of the leading edges of the music - and music is full of leading edges, every note and musical chord has one! This has a lot to do with what can be called 'slam' at the bass end, or the 'spang' of a plucked note, and applies equally across the frequency spectrum. That has little to do with tonal balance, and much to do about rise time and speaker driver response time / acceleration. It's this that helps bring reproduced music alive for me - and so many components sound way too sluggish and laid back.
I can't answer that question as you've stated it, Marco. To me, the system which is more fundamentally accurate to the signal will always allow me to enjoy the music more. Highly transparent, 'open window' systems have always been the ones that put a smile on my face, even if the recording is a challenging one. I have never found a system to be improved by removing more of the signal or adding distortion.
Yes, the same for me. Systems that truly enchant me and hold my interest are those that have that 'open window' on the recording; where you are listening to the recording hanging in space and not sound coming out of boxes. Such systems let the recording speak for itself, and you realise that most recordings are actually very good indeed. No need to add salt or sugar to taste. Whilst it may be impossible to construct a truly transparent system (I personally disagree, although the loudspeakers required would be very expensive) it is a target point of perfection to aim at.
The quality of the engineers kit or the limitations of the medium being used are red herrings. You're task in the pursuit of hi-fidelity is to take the end user product (CD, file vinyl, whatever) and reproduce that as accurately as possible, with as full a frequency range as possible and minimal noise and distortion. Do that and you don't need to fret about whether it will put a smile on your face because it will.
Well, I wasn't really talking about phase issues (I think ... maybe I was!) but about transient speed. So many components simply cannot capture a reasonable facsimile of the leading edges of the music - and music is full of leading edges, every note and musical chord has one! This has a lot to do with what can be called 'slam' at the bass end, or the 'spang' of a plucked note, and applies equally across the frequency spectrum. That has little to do with tonal balance, and much to do about rise time and speaker driver response time / acceleration. It's this that helps bring reproduced music alive for me - and so many components sound way too sluggish and laid back.
Same hymn book Jerry :exactly: Capturing "leading edges of music" is all about the harmonics and overtones making up a note in time by a particular instrument (or instruments) compounded by the environment in which they were recorded (ambience/reverb of a live hall or that added on a digital mixing console) and this IS partly phase related, or at least parts of it certainly are. I also mentioned that ultimately, we are limited by the physical constraints of what we listen on, and transient speed is partly a mechanical constraint of a design implementation. Driver integration is yet another example of where even if everything else is accurate, mess up here and the phasing between frequencies can become muddled again. These are things that need measurement to correct them although we can easily detect them subjectively to a certain degree, so it really just highlights what you've found yourself Jerry....All I'm adding is that without the "measurist" side of things, it would be like shooting in the dark to come up with a design solution from the drawing board. Of course the debate is rendered largely meaningless where recording engineers so badly screw up the mastering and final production that it would matter not what we listened on, the end result would be nasty. Sadly, this is quite often the case with some types of music because of what is perceived to help sales rather than to preserve the integrity of dynamic response (for example).
Why this belief that the recording engineer (and his kit) are perfect? :scratch:
So often, it just ain't so. :nono:
What I want to replicate is the sound of the music in the original venue, to capture what the musicians were doing, not what the sound engineer was doing.
To honour the musicians' intent rather than the engineers' ability (or lack thereof) to capture it.
Whilst that's a noble goal, Jerry, it's also one that in reality is impossible, unless you consider that second-guessing the highlighted bits above, and subsequently how you've voiced your system in an attempt to replicate them, as reflecting that reality.
If you do, that's fair enough, but it can only be your subjective interpretation of it, not a genuinely accurate one. The recording engineer and his kit are more than likely not perfect, but the recording that he or she has produced, which in turn we've bought, is ALL we've got to work with.
Therefore, as far as a system achieving high-fidelity is concerned, the goal is to reproduce the information on that recording as accurately as possible, not to try and imagine the intent of the musicians and subjectively recreate what can only ever be a diluted version of the truth.
Although the latter might be the most rewarding way for you to voice your system for maximum musical satisfaction, it has nothing to do with achieving true high-fidelity, quite simply because you cannot reproduce a sound, or a feeling, faithful to that which you don't know.
Marco.
I can't answer that question as you've stated it, Marco. To me, the system which is more fundamentally accurate to the signal will always allow me to enjoy the music more. Highly transparent, 'open window' systems have always been the ones that put a smile on my face, even if the recording is a challenging one. I have never found a system to be improved by removing more of the signal or adding distortion.
Same here (and you know that to be the case from our listening sessions together)! :)
However, the question was designed for you to consider the scenario of, if you had no other option, choosing between absolute fidelity or ultimate musical enjoyment, so which way would you go?
Consider also that, due to voicing your system to suit your particular requirements (through the component choices you've made), you may already have created a system that is ultimately more musically satisfying (to you) than fundamentally accurate.... ;)
How would you know, for sure, any differently? Think about it.
Marco.
jandl100
25-01-2014, 10:44
Whilst that's a noble goal, Jerry, it's also one that in reality is impossible, unless you consider that second-guessing the highlighted bits above, and subsequently how you've voiced your system in an attempt to replicate them, as reflecting that reality.
If you do, that's fair enough, but it can only be your subjective interpretation of it, not a genuinely accurate one. The recording engineer and his kit are more than likely not perfect, but the recording that he or she has produced, which in turn we've bought, is ALL we've got to work with.
Therefore, as far as a system achieving high-fidelity is concerned, the goal is to reproduce the information on that recording as accurately as possible, not to try and imagine the intent of the musicians and subjectively recreate what can only ever be a diluted version of the truth.
Although the latter might be the most rewarding way for you to voice your system for maximum musical satisfaction, it has nothing to do with achieving true high-fidelity, quite simply because you cannot reproduce a sound, or a feeling, faithful to that which you don't know.
Marco.
Bah, humbug! :lol:
Firstly, I admitted to the subjectiveness of where my line of reasoning was heading ...
Of course, going down this tack it all gets horribly subjective and gharstly things like Linn Sondek turntables and Tannoy DC speakers can result! :eyebrows:
And secondly ...
The recording engineer and his kit are more than likely not perfect, but the recording that he or she has produced, which in turn we've bought, is ALL we've got to work with.
Not true - we know what live music in real music venues sounds like. A lot of music recording and reproduction equipment doesn't bear much resemblance to this, tonally or dynamically (let's not get hooked on recording end only, the replay end is just as important to the overall point of the thread). Why not reproduce it closer to that reality, or reject or modify replay equipment and recordings which don't do this?
Why not reproduce it closer to that reality, or reject or modify replay equipment and recordings which don't do this?
Because you can't put back what isn't there in the first place? (is if it wasn't in the recording in the first place, you cannot modify replay equipment to bring it back)
The quality of the engineers kit or the limitations of the medium being used are red herrings. You're task in the pursuit of hi-fidelity is to take the end user product (CD, file vinyl, whatever) and reproduce that as accurately as possible, with as full a frequency range as possible and minimal noise and distortion.
Precisely! *That* is the definition of true high-fidelity. However, it is not necessarily the sound that everyone will appreciate most.
Marco.
Not true - we know what live music in real music venues sounds like. A lot of music recording and reproduction equipment doesn't bear much resemblance to this...
...in your opinion. Perhaps others would disagree, when hearing the same recording on a different system? You're making the mistake of considering your opinion on the matter as being in some way definitive or irrefutable.
Also, you're in La-la land if you think you can alter that situation, and recreate the reality of the original event, by sliding a few controls on your graphic equaliser! :mental: ;)
Why not reproduce it closer to that reality, or reject or modify replay equipment and recordings which don't do this?
Lol... I'm afraid that the reality you describe is only ever going to be *your* reality, not the actual reality that happened when the recording took place! However, if it makes you feel better believing the contrary, feel free to keep kidding yourself on... :eyebrows:
Marco.
If you mainly listen to recordings of live performances of unamplified instruments - i.e classical - then I can understand the requirements being a bit different. So I understand where Jerry is coming from - the pursuit of 'live ' sound' in the home. I pursue 'studio sound' in the home. Two different goals.
Yes, Martin, (and we're going round in circles here), if we're talking about achieving genuine high-fidelity with our systems, from the recordings we're given to reproduce, then that definition can ONLY be what you described earlier, and which I quoted in post #54 - nothing else.
If we're talking about how best to assemble our systems, in order that the sound they produce is more musically faithful to our ears, or what we believe is 'real', then that's a different matter entirely!
Marco.
Consider also that, due to voicing your system to suit your particular requirements (through the component choices you've made), you may already have created a system that is ultimately more musically satisfying (to you) than fundamentally accurate.... ;)
How would you know, for sure, any differently? Think about it.
I can't know for sure (and, since we can only approach perfect reproduction, it will never be) but I do go to enough acoustic concerts to know how single and massed instruments sound, as well as voice. In fact, playing BBC R4 voice can be mighty educational. For me, attainment of near-perfect transparency will always get me closer to the performance. My system has no tone controls or equaliser and I abhor them on the basis that I can never put back what isn't there.
If you've never heard, say, a single saxophone played in your room you should try it. It's am amazing instrument with incredible potency and you will struggle to assemble a system that can reproduce the power, blare, rasp, breathiness and all the other complexities that make it sound like no other instrument. A violin played well and heard up close is also an incredible experience.
My goal is not to 'voice' my system per se, but to make it reproduce the sound of natural instruments to be as real and believable as I can. Everything else will then fall into place provided you have the scale and power required.
I can't know for sure (and, since we can only approach perfect reproduction, it will never be) but I do go to enough acoustic concerts to know how single and massed instruments sound, as well as voice. In fact, playing BBC R4 voice can be mighty educational. For me, attainment of near-perfect transparency will always get me closer to the performance. My system has no tone controls or equaliser and I abhor them on the basis that I can never put back what isn't there.
If you've never heard, say, a single saxophone played in your room you should try it. It's am amazing instrument with incredible potency and you will struggle to assemble a system that can reproduce the power, blare, rasp, breathiness and all the other complexities that make it sound like no other instrument. A violin played well and heard up close is also an incredible experience.
My goal is not to 'voice' my system per se, but to make it reproduce the sound of natural instruments to be as real and believable as I can. Everything else will then fall into place provided you have the scale and power required.
Now you're talking my language, something which I alluded to earlier in the thread ;)
My goal is not to 'voice' my system per se, but to make it reproduce the sound of natural instruments to be as real and believable as I can. Everything else will then fall into place provided you have the scale and power required.
I agree with everything you've written, Martin (with bells on). Your goals in audio mirror my own.
However, the fact is, by choosing the components you have for your system, you're subsequently (in your case most likely unconsciously) 'voicing' your system to suit your tastes, as the net effect of your component choices is that they will have combined to create a 'sonic signature', which deviates in some way from the absolute truth of what is contained in the source recording.
I'm afraid that this applies to all of us, whether we choose to accept it or not.
Marco.
jandl100
25-01-2014, 11:34
la la land, indeed. :lol:
Also, you're in La-la land if you think you can alter that situation, and recreate reality, by sliding a few controls on your graphic equaliser! :mental: ;)
So what say you to my post above? -->
... as one example of where my thoughts lead --->
As I type this I am listening to Sibelius' 4th symphony over a pair of Grado 325i headphones. They have an unmistakable lift in the treble that makes listening quite unpleasant, they are not tonally 'flat' by any means. But they have excellent resolution and a wonderful way of tracking dynamic changes in the music that makes the listening experience really come alive.
So - what to do? - What I do is feed the signal thru my Sony ESD1000 pre-amp / equalizer - shave 3dB or so off the top end and all is very well indeed with my musical world! :thumbsup:
-- yes, the manipulations of the Sony's circuit do dilute the liveness of the sound a bit, but I am left with a vastly superior and more realistic listening experience compared to the un-equalized replay. I retain most of the dynamic liveness and transparency of the Grados, but with a more realistic (and pleasant) tonal balance.
jandl100
25-01-2014, 11:38
As Martin macca says, it's easier with acoustic music, where you have at least an idea of the reality, an Absolute Sound, to compare with.
What to do with electronic music, though? - what does the latest James Blake album really sound like?
A meaningless question of course - it sounds like what has come from the mixing desk, no more, no less. MartinT's ideal.
Of course you can always play it through the euphonic transducer of your choice - like Tannoy DC speakers. ;) Now that's la la land. :D
Jerry, give it a rest with the Tannoy thing, as it's starting to wear thin, particularly if you want to have a serious discussion. We all know you don't like them, so repeating it constantly only serves to make it look as if you've got some kind of agenda.
Marco.
... as one example of where my thoughts lead --->
As I type this I am listening to Sibelius' 4th symphony over a pair of Grado 325i headphones. They have an unmistakable lift in the treble that makes listening quite unpleasant, they are not tonally 'flat' by any means. But they have excellent resolution and a wonderful way of tracking dynamic changes in the music that makes the listening experience really come alive.
So - what to do? - What I do is feed the signal thru my Sony ESD1000 pre-amp / equalizer - shave 3dB or so off the top end and all is very well indeed with my musical world!
-- yes, the manipulations of the Sony's circuit do dilute the liveness of the sound a bit, but I am left with a vastly superior and more realistic listening experience compared to the un-equalized replay. I retain most of the dynamic liveness and transparency of the Grados, but with a more realistic (and pleasant) tonal balance.
So what say you to my post above?
I think you've said it all yourself, particularly with these words: "What I do is feed the signal thru my Sony ESD1000 pre-amp / equalizer - shave 3dB or so off the top end and all is very well indeed with my musical world!"
All you're doing is tailoring the sound to create *your* musical world, nothing else. That is not replicating the reality that existed when the recording took place. If you believe differently, then I'm afraid it's all in your head.
Marco.
jandl100
25-01-2014, 12:15
I'm happy to agree to disagree.
That's cool, as am I. The bottom line is that whatever makes you happy, when listening to music on your system, is what's most important :)
Marco.
Well I record myself on the acoustic every now and then, using a once cost £250 Rowland digital recorder.
Put it through the Duettas, at larger than life levels, and it sounds massively better/more impressive than the real thing. An acoustic lens type thing - a magnifying glass into what the guitar is doing.
Sod this reality lark, I want better than reality.
However, the fact is, by choosing the components you have for your system, you're subsequently (in your case most likely unconsciously) 'voicing' your system to suit your tastes
Not deliberately, and that's my point. My goal remains to approach the sound of real instruments and real voice in a real acoustic. Whenever I upgrade a component, it takes me a step closer to that goal - otherwise I wouldn't consider it an upgrade.
I suspect this is one of those 'irregular verbs' things:
I upgrade my system to approach the real sound
You upgrade your system to make it sounder 'nicer'
He upgrades his system because he has more money than sense.
. My goal remains to approach the sound of real instruments and real voice in a real acoustic. .
The way I look at it is that sound is already there on the disc. The components of the system do not create that sound - all they can do is to ruin it. So the idea is to use the components that ruin it the least.
I suspect this is one of those 'irregular verbs' things:
I upgrade my system to approach the real sound
You upgrade your system to make it sounder 'nicer'
He upgrades his system because he has more money than sense.
lol
'I have a transparent sounding system'
'You have system that sounds 'nice''
'He bought the wrong kit'
'I have a transparent sounding system'
'You have system that sounds 'nice''
'He bought the wrong kit'
:rfl: the truth be in there somewhere!
Down a local pub, I heard a pair of these: http://www.peavey.com/products/index.cfm/series/1126/PVX™%20Series
Just a rock covers band. They (the speakers) sounded astonishing. Surely if you want small venue accuracy, this is what you need. Or is it?
As I mentioned, I started off with what at that time turned out to be an unrealistic goal of high fidelity to the medium. I think hoping to reproduce what musicians played in the studio or some semblance of a live performance is unrealistic; the physics of sound and the mixing engineer make sure of that. That leaves us with the goal of reproducing the medium as accurately as possible if high fidelity is your aim.
For many it seems this isn’t the aim and I can completely empathise with this. Until recently, my system exhibited a far from flat response, you didn’t even have to use an RTA program to work this out! I designed the system to make the best of the equipment and the environment it worked in with the objective having a pleasant listening experience. :eyebrows:
More recently I’ve been introduced to the dreaded digital mixing desk (a bit of hands on) and room correction programs that some studios are using mainly because it saves considerable expense in studio construction. :stalks:
I must admit, despite being a digital fan I have viewed such software with deep distrust preferring to make physical alterations to the environment chasing a wave bump here or a node there; It’s a nightmare to be frank for the majority of rooms.
One has, as Paul mentions have to have a point of reference to deviate from and for me and it seems most equipment designers, that is a flat response throughout the audio range. Getting this and how one goes about it is bound to raise the debate. Let me just state that there are people who can tune by ear and be astonishingly accurate, mainly musicians and engineers in my experience. I can’t.
Now, thanks to progress in digital technology we are all going to be able to afford an ideal listening environment but instead of spending thousands of pounds on dedicated rooms we will only need to spend a a couple of hundred on some simple test gear and a computer program. Don’t like what the mixing engineer did to your favorite album, re mix it. Got a nasty 40Hz bump in your room, fix it at source.
Rather amusingly imo this is going to promote a whole new hotly debated division within audiophile circles; those with digital correction and those without. I can’t wait.....
So, I wondered how people here feel about this opportunity. You will be able to eliminate the biggest hindrance to high fidelity audio at a stroke and that is the room response and in that not very distant future you’ll be able to analyse your kit and tailor for any shortcomings there as well. This is of course terrible news for many of the manufactures of high end kit because, given you accept that there aren’t large differences between well designed electronics those who spent say five hundred quid on a system and have DSP will be able to say and be able to prove that their kit is more accurate than say the person who spent 50 times that much.
Will people go digital in order to obtain high fidelity at a reasonable cost or will people be content with a system they think sounds good to them? :D
Needless to say, I’m trying out a couple of room correction programs and my quest for high fidelity has been rekindled.
Now, thanks to progress in digital technology we are all going to be able to afford an ideal listening environment but instead of spending thousands of pounds on dedicated rooms we will only need to spend a a couple of hundred on some simple test gear and a computer program. Don’t like what the mixing engineer did to your favorite album, re mix it. Got a nasty 40Hz bump in your room, fix it at source.
Unfortunately, that will involve putting our precious signal through yet another ADC and DAC chain in order to accomplish it. Unless you source digital only, of course. And what about the response of the microphone used for correction?
given you accept that there aren’t large differences between well designed electronics
The more I hear different electronics, the less I agree with that statement.
The way I look at it is that sound is already there on the disc. The components of the system do not create that sound - all they can do is to ruin it. So the idea is to use the components that ruin it the least.
Spot on! That is the *actual* reality of the matter :thumbsup:
Marco.
Unfortunately, that will involve putting our precious signal through yet another ADC and DAC chain in order to accomplish it. Unless you source digital only, of course. And what about the response of the microphone used for correction?
The more I hear different electronics, the less I agree with that statement.
Well Martin, the mic response will be as good or better than the majority of those used to record with so I can’t see this being much of an issue. :scratch:
Yep, it will be a bit of a problem for the analogue enthusiasts. It will be interesting to see how many abandon analogue sources.
I’ve been dying to write this..............................:D
If more audiophiles had truly transparent and revealing systems then I believe the perceived differences in the performance would diminish................
Sry, couldn’t help myself.:sofa:
Of course, there will always be the debate about the influence different electronics have on the audio signal. However, I have yet to read/hear anyone who knows anything about audio say that the differences between amps/dacs whatever gets anywhere close to the influence of the room the system plays in.
Unfortunately, that will involve putting our precious signal through yet another ADC and DAC chain in order to accomplish it.
Quite. The fact is, there is no 'free lunch', as it were, so ANYTHING introduced into the audio reproduction chain is going to add something of its own sonic signature.
The key to the success of this new technology will be whether the problems you've targeted becoming fixed, outweighs the detrimental sonic effect of introducing the 'gubbins' necessary to fix them....
I doubt that I'll be interested in investing in such technology, a) because I'm deeply sceptical about it being capable of increasing my listening pleasure, b) because there are no problems with my system that I currently feel necessary to 'fix', and c) because I have no intentions of ever going 'all digital'.
I'll be using a turntable, and playing records, until I'm carted away in a box!!
:exactly:
Marco.
If more audiophiles had truly transparent and revealing systems then I believe the perceived differences in the performance would diminish................
Sorry, John, I haven't got a clue what you mean - could you expand on that please?
However, I have yet to read/hear anyone who knows anything about audio say that the differences between amps/dacs whatever gets anywhere close to the influence of the room the system plays in.
No-one who knows what they're talking about would deny that, but the myth is that whatever 'magic box' we connect to our systems, in order to fix all the 'ills' that exist, in relation to the room, doesn't simultaneously add an unwanted sonic effect of its own.
That's why I believe that, unless the room is really bad, better results are usually obtained through minimal 'molesting' of the audio signal, and simply choosing whichever equipment and speakers floats you boat - and if necessary applying room correction treatment passively.
The best 'room treatment' of all, is to ensure that you've got an acoustically good one in the first place, rather than applying a 'sticking plaster' afterwards!! ;)
That's why if we were ever moving house, the No1 priority will be to ensure that the property has fundamentally 'good sounding' rooms, especially where the hi-fi system will be going. In reality, the room will be purpose-built to suit, buy MY way, without the need for any digital 'correcting' equipment!
Marco.
Irrespective of what digital jiggery-pokery is used John, one area in the system it cannot work on, in spite of how it tailors response, is the speakers themselves. People who've perhaps paid good money for very high quality speakers which address issues superbly such as scale, transient response, group delay, phase accuracy, off axis response, wide frequency range etc etc, will never have that replaced by a cheap set of (small) loudspeakers costing £50 no-matter what digital manipulation there is to the sound, so there I think is a chink in the argument. It will go a long way to making the best of the speaker/room interface. I suspect that its actually quite difficult to buy truly awful source components and amplification nowadays anyway so the weakest link in the chain imho will always be the speakers/room interface and the speakers themselves.
If more audiophiles had truly transparent and revealing systems then I believe the perceived differences in the performance would diminish................
That's not such a big revelation. We've done this elsewhere, such as with valves versus solid state. As you reach the high end of reproduction, they converge in sound quality to reach 'no sound of their own'.
Irrespective of what digital jiggery-pokery is used John, one area in the system it cannot work on, in spite of how it tailors response, is the speakers themselves. People who've perhaps paid good money for very high quality speakers which address issues superbly such as scale, transient response, group delay, phase accuracy, off axis response, wide frequency range etc etc, will never have that replaced by a cheap set of (small) loudspeakers costing £50 no-matter what digital manipulation there is to the sound, so there I think is a chink in the argument.
Indeed, and more than a cheeky little chink-ette, too! :eyebrows:
It would be a cold day in hell before I gave up using 'proper' speakers [down boy, Jerry :D] for pish like that......
Marco.
Indeed, and more than a cheeky little chink-ette, too! :eyebrows:
It would be a cold day in hell before I gave up using 'proper' speakers [down boy, Jerry :D] for pish like that......
Marco.
We need a campaign to revitalise the 'proper speaker'. Too many people nowadays using these poxy little things and trying to make the best of a bad job. They use excuses like 'the wife won't let me have anything bigger' or 'the neighbours will complain'. Well, try to man up a bit, I say. You need fifteen inch bass drivers in your life and you know it. In fact I'm currently working on a theory that we can solve most of life's problems with fifteen inch bass drivers if only people would stop and think!
Yo, Macca for Prime minister!! :hifive: :yesbruv:
Marco.
Sorry, John, I haven't got a clue what you mean - could you expand on that please?
Marco.
Sure Marco. :)
As system component quality (however one defines this) improves, there is less room for dramatic change.
(see Martins post)
When for example I read about dramatic improvements in peoples systems that on paper at least look more than competent I can’t help coming to the conclusion that there was some serious component mismatch in the first instance.
I was genuinely surprised when you and Martin wrote it was getting harder to tell the difference between your record players and your digital components. I haven’t had the opportunity to make such a comparison for many years now and have absolutely no idea how your modified decks perform. My doubtless inaccurate recollection of my record players’ sound I think would be easy to pick out from my current digital kit and my record player wasn’t too shoddy back in the day.
Anyway we don’t have truly transparent and/or revealing systems, none of us so there is always the opportunity for improvement albeit slight.
At what level the possibility for dramatic change stops is another debate.
Paul has got straight to the weak point of the wonders of DSP, although I must say I have heard some pretty astounding sounds with room correction software coming from not £50 speakers, but a few hundred pounds worth.
In the end, as has been stated by many, it’s going to be the speakers that will limit the overall performance.
Anyway, no doubt which mast you've nailed your colours to then Marco. ;)
I wonder if at some later date when DSP is more common and you've heard the results you'll find a way of incorporating it into your analogue system. Once you have the digital file and if you accept that DA conversion can be done in a manner that doesn't degrade the bits to an audible extent then the prospect looks pretty good to me. :)
Yo, Macca for Prime minister!! :hifive: :yesbruv:
Marco.
Yeah vote for me I'll make big Tannoys and JBLs free on the NHS
jandl100
25-01-2014, 19:12
Today's systems are near perfect? Only slight room for improvements?
A hundred years or so ago, at the very start of acoustic recordings, you know - the old His Masters Voice type systems and earlier ....
http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~srs/Antiques/misc/HisMastersVoiceSign.jpg
.... professional musicians and music lovers alike proclaimed the sound as astonishingly lifelike and difficult to distinguish from live music.
If we heard such a system today, we would find this extremely amusing.
Perhaps in a hundred years time music lovers and audiophiles will look back on today's electronics and sounds systems with equal humour. ;) I rather suspect they will.
The more my system improves, the more I realise there are further substantial improvements that are possible. And it ain't chopped liver at the moment, by any means. I have not yet seen a law of diminishing returns even start to kick in.
Today's systems are near perfect? Only slight room for improvements?
A hundred years or so ago, at the very start of acoustic recordings, you know - the old His Masters Voice type systems and earlier ....
http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~srs/Antiques/misc/HisMastersVoiceSign.jpg
.... professional musicians and music lovers alike proclaimed the sound as astonishingly lifelike and difficult to distinguish from live music.
If we heard such a system today, we would find this extremely amusing.
Perhaps in a hundred years time music lovers and audiophiles will look back on today's electronics and sounds systems with equal humour. ;) I rather suspect they will.
.
Or perhaps like now they will be searching out all the good stuff from the past because the modern products are mostly WAF-friendly, poorly built, CE junk.
My TT was designed in 1974, Cartridge from similar era, speakers from 1973. CD player from 1989. I'm not using any of that stuff because I have to....
Today's systems are near perfect? Only slight room for improvements?
A hundred years or so ago, at the very start of acoustic recordings, you know - the old His Masters Voice type systems and earlier ....
http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~srs/Antiques/misc/HisMastersVoiceSign.jpg
.... professional musicians and music lovers alike proclaimed the sound as astonishingly lifelike and difficult to distinguish from live music.
If we heard such a system today, we would find this extremely amusing.
Perhaps in a hundred years time music lovers and audiophiles will look back on today's electronics and sounds systems with equal humour. ;) I rather suspect they will.
The more my system improves, the more I realise there are further substantial improvements that are possible. And it ain't chopped liver at the moment, by any means. I have not yet seen a law of diminishing returns even start to kick in.
Oh, I thought a lot of audiophiles are still listening to exactly these types of systems and believing them to be the very pinnacle of performance. :D
Sure Marco.
As system component quality (however one defines this) improves, there is less room for dramatic change.
(see Martins post)
When for example I read about dramatic improvements in peoples systems that on paper at least look more than competent I can’t help coming to the conclusion that there was some serious component mismatch in the first instance.
I was genuinely surprised when you and Martin wrote it was getting harder to tell the difference between your record players and your digital components. I haven’t had the opportunity to make such a comparison for many years now and have absolutely no idea how your modified decks perform. My doubtless inaccurate recollection of my record players’ sound I think would be easy to pick out from my current digital kit and my record player wasn’t too shoddy back in the day.
Anyway we don’t have truly transparent and/or revealing systems, none of us so there is always the opportunity for improvement albeit slight.
At what level the possibility for dramatic change stops is another debate.
Paul has got straight to the weak point of the wonders of DSP, although I must say I have heard some pretty astounding sounds with room correction software coming from not £50 speakers, but a few hundred pounds worth.
In the end, as has been stated by many, it’s going to be the speakers that will limit the overall performance.
Anyway, no doubt which mast you've nailed your colours to then Marco. ;)
I wonder if at some later date when DSP is more common and you've heard the results you'll find a way of incorporating it into your analogue system. Once you have the digital file and if you accept that DA conversion can be done in a manner that doesn't degrade the bits to an audible extent then the prospect looks pretty good to me.
Thanks for the explanation, John. That's fair enough.
Regarding the T/T thing, you'll just have to take our word for it, or when you're next in the UK, come and hear where we're coming from for yourself :)
No colours have been nailed to the mast, so I wouldn't rule out using ANYTHING in my system, whether it's DSP, or whatever - providing that to my ears it makes a significantly audible and worthwhile improvement. *That* is the crux of the matter.
What I'm against is being TOLD by so-called 'experts', who base their judgements on measurements, that [insert new piece of technology here] is more 'accurate' than my 'legacy' CD player, or whatever. All that's liable to do is make me rebel against using said new technology!
If I'm going to embrace using new technology in my system, then it needs to be on MY terms, via the use of MY usual subjective assessment procedure, and most importantly, it must be proven to ME that said new technology significantly outperforms the old technology it replaced, otherwise you can stick yer new technology up yer jobby-hole...
I will not change the kit I've got, which performs to a superb sonic standard, and replace it with some 'magic digital box', simply to be 'up to date'. It has to earn the right to make it into my system, purely and simply on sonic terms.
Marco.
Or perhaps like now they will be searching out all the good stuff from the past because the modern products are mostly WAF-friendly, poorly built, CE junk.
My TT was designed in 1974, Cartridge from similar era, speakers from 1973. CD player from 1989. I'm not using any of that stuff because I have to....
Indeed, and of course I'm using a CD player and DAC from the late 80s, a cartridge and amplification based on 1950s technology, and a pair of speakers from the late 60s, because I can't afford any better :lol:
Marco.
C'mon Marco tell the truth. You found all that old rubbish in a skip and took it home 'cause you couldn't afford an iPod and some Beats. Mine was all off a boot sale for 30p - before that if I wanted to listen to music I had to start singing.
Cool... Did you record it on your iPhone and upload it on YouTube (or in Glaswegian, as the Big Man would say, 'YaChoob')? :D
Marco.
Cool... Did you record it on your iPhone and upload it on YouTube (or in Glaswegian, as the Big Man would say, 'YaChoob')? :D
Marco.
Or 'Youse Tube' as we scousers say....
I have the ability to use DSP but luckily enough I have my system pretty flat and works fine in my room. I can also play around with slopes and crossover points on my system. It gives me a lot of control of the quality of bass I get
It has to earn the right to make it into my system, purely and simply on sonic terms.
Totally agree. System changes are rare for me these days, and only after careful evaluation.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.