The vinyl illusion ?

[montesquieu]

Hi Tom,

Good post, and I get where you're coming from (it is also extremely relevant to the discussion), but what I'm getting at goes beyond semantics, and is essentially summed up here:



Could you have a go at addressing that bit, specifically if a system were able to achieve the above, then surely that would be everyone's goal, *if* they actually wanted to hear the REAL thing, and not simply a 'nicer' version, tailored to appeal to their own tastes?

For me, you either want to try [the key word here] and achieve (as far as possible) genuine HIGH-FIDELITY, with a system and the music it reproduces (as outlined by the cello example above), or you don't. There is NO grey area!

Marco.

Not sure I 100% agree Marco. We've all been at gigs where the sound is awful (rough, honking saxes, rubbish PA systems, classical concerts where the hall is too big ... almost any music with less than 100 performers sounds shit in the Albert Hall, but even a solo viola da gamba in a small hall like the Wigmore can disappoint - I left Jordi Saval at half time, couldn't hear him). Sometimes it's all too much - not so much the cello you mention but Ive been at Lieder recitals at the Holywell Music Room in Oxford - believed to be the UK's first dedicated concert hall, seats about 250 people - where the dynamic range was such that my ears rattled and distorted in the loud bits, but we were on the edge of seats holding breath for quiet passages, trying not to miss a syllable.

Most jazz recordings sound 'better' than the real thing but to actually see the strain on a performer's face as they execute a difficult passage, to watch the musicians gently communicate in tiny facial expressions, to feel the bass in your gut and the soles of your feet, these more than make up for crap PA systems and duff acoustics - but I don't want crap acoustics reproduced without these cues and I'm not sure any of us do.

So ... 'Live' is simply not the aspiration for me when I listen at home and '100% accurate' again required definition. For 'accurate' I would substitute 'convincing' or 'satisfying'.

So maybe the short answer to your ultimate question is 'I don't'. But neither is that the whole story.

[User211]

Dunno about media and sources, but only electronically generated music 'measures' well, as its tones will be exactly what was dialled in. Acoustic instruments measure 'badly', as their sound is full of distortions and harmonics. Which is why they sound so nice!

Hm. Interesting assertions. Of course from a playback point of view, that's where the commonly introduced notion of distortion is introduced, not in the source component itself i.e. an acoustic guitar. Which is a mess of harmonics and, if you include misplaced fingers on a fret board as distortion, then lots of that, too. You can detect it even in the best players.

It doesn't always sound good, though, especially in the case of cheap violins and poor players.

One of the things I really like about studio recorded electronic music is it seems to consistently sound good. Far more so that most other genres, in fact. It isn't hard to see why. Where's the market for duff sounding synthetically created sounds? Nowhere, really. Well OK, you might need a bit of it to sound harsh where that's the intent etc etc.

[farflungstar]

I'm looking for accuracy of timbre and tone, and as much detail extraction from groove as possible BUT I won't sacrifice musicality. Hence my current set up and hatred of all things Naim which screams detail without soul (sorry, just not my thing).

Accuracy is impossible if a system veils information, musicality is relatively easy to achieve, and there are ways and means of maintaining accuracy and musicality together by careful selection of components and a little compromise.

[Marco]

Not sure I 100% agree Marco. We've all been at gigs where the sound is awful (rough, honking saxes, rubbish PA systems, classical concerts where the hall is too big ... almost any music with less than 100 performers sounds shit in the Albert Hall, but even a solo viola da gamba in a small hall like the Wigmore can disappoint - I left Jordi Saval at half time, couldn't hear him). Sometimes it's all too much - not so much the cello you mention but Ive been at Lieder recitals at the Holywell Music Room in Oxford - believed to be the UK's first dedicated concert hall, seats about 250 people - where the dynamic range was such that my ears rattled and distorted in the loud bits, but we were on the edge of seats holding breath for quiet passages, trying not to miss a syllable.

Most jazz recordings sound 'better' than the real thing but to actually see the strain on a performer's face as they execute a difficult passage, to watch the musicians gently communicate in tiny facial expressions, to feel the bass in your gut and the soles of your feet, these more than make up for crap PA systems and duff acoustics - but I don't want crap acoustics reproduced without these cues and I'm not sure any of us do.

So ... 'Live' is simply not the aspiration for me when I listen at home and '100% accurate' again required definition. For 'accurate' I would substitute 'convincing' or 'satisfying'.

So maybe the short answer to your ultimate question is 'I don't'. But neither is that the whole story.

But again you're missing my point. Who said anything about PA systems and gigs featuring such? Not me!

I'm talking purely about reproducing the sound of acoustic instruments, such as the cello I gave as an example. The benchmark, for me, is replicating (as closely as possible) the type of sound Jim described earlier, produced by those street musicians, and its intimacy, immediacy and dynamic impact.

So are you saying, then, that if your system were able to reproduce your favourite acoustic instrument 100% faithfully, you wouldn't want that?

It can't of course, nor can mine, but it doesn't stop me striving to achieve it... And for me, that's what HI-FI [the key word here] is all about!

Marco.

[Marco]

Accuracy is impossible if a system veils information, musicality is relatively easy to achieve, and there are ways and means of maintaining accuracy and musicality together by careful selection of components and a little compromise.

That's my point in a nutshell, and if we call ourselves 'hi-fi enthusiasts', then our goal should be to remove as much of that veiling as possible, simply to hear MORE of the MUSIC!

Like I said before, you cannot get any more 'musical sounding', 'soulful', 'emotive', or whatever, than the *ACTUAL* SOUND OF THE MUSIC itself, so getting as close as possible to that has to be the goal *if* we're at all interested in achieving HIGH-FIDELITY ...

But that point doesn't seem to be getting through here to some (perhaps intentionally) thick heads

Marco.

[Jimbo]

Yes, but you're missing my point, Jim.

Marco.

I am certainly with you Marco regarding a systems ability to faithfully resolve a recording in a manner that is as realistic to the actual vocal,instrument or music.

My point there was that no matter how you argue this point other folk will have their own subjective ideal as to what actually constitutes a realistic representation. They may not even care and simply want something that sounds nice.

[Marco]

My point there was that no matter how you argue this point other folk will have their own subjective ideal as to what actually constitutes a realistic representation..

Yes, but that's not the argument, hence why you're missing my point

My point is that it's not about creating "a subjective ideal as to what actually constitutes a realistic representation", and what that means to a certain person. Rewind a bit... I'm talking about actually having THE DESIRE to go there in the first place!

It seems that some folk don't actually WANT to create a realistic representation at all, but simply a euphonic effect, which sounds nice - and that fundamentally *isn't* hi-fi. So if that's what you're into, then fine, but don't call yourself a hi-fi enthusiast. All you're doing is kidding yourself on.

Am I making myself any clearer now?

Marco.

[farflungstar]

I don't think anyone can argue that we wouldn't like a cello to sound like a cello - it's the recording process/quality that can get in the way even if we had a completely transparent system. Likewise venue acoustics can destroy our enjoyment, with or without PA. This is why balance between the two extremes is the best option - and it is possible.

[Marco]

I don't think anyone can argue that we wouldn't like a cello to sound like a cello...

Well, you'd hope so, but given the content of some of the posts here, I'm not so sure!

Marco.

[User211]

But what does a cello sound like? They all vary. Even my acoustic guitars vary a lot depending on which room I am playing them in.

You can't win. This hobby is for losers. And you are right. I am taking the piss a bit. Being an obvious loser myself