View Full Version : System Rating Scale
Beaufort has one, Richter has one, so I thought I would try my hand. It might be useful as shorthand, so you could say 'I heard a system made up of such and such and rated it a '3' instead of having to write a load of waffle to describe it.
So here it is the System for Subjective System Rating (or 3SR in short hand ;) ):
1. Inadequate - flawed system that has timing and/or distortion issues, not pleasant to listen to with anything but the most bland and anodyne programme. A relief to switch it off and sit in silence
2. Adequate - tidy sounding system that has no audible flaws but never amounts to anything more than sound coming out of speakers. No 'wow' moments, nothing to write home about but pleasant to listen to with all but the most demanding programme. You will not find yourself captivated, though, and will soon be looking for other distractions like a magazine to read whilst you listen.
3. Good - Builds on the adequate system by sounding a bit special, able to deliver the odd 'wow' moment and capable of giving some insight in terms of reproducing the recorded acoustic and the tone/timbre of instruments. Individual notes attract your attention in the way they ring and decay, involving you in the sound and suspending your disbelief. Most of the time you forget you are listening to a mechanical reproduction. A system you can sit and listen to without the need for other distractions.
4. Very Good - Has all the properties of the Good system but heightened. A system that will really grab your attention and hold it, no matter what the programme. A sound that is always quite clearly a re-played recording of real events rather than just air being moved by loudspeakers. A benchmark system that will wow civilians into dumbstruck awe and which even the jaded enthusiast will not easily forget listening to.
5. Outstanding - Has all the properties of the Very Good system but is optimally set up in every respect, truly wide-band, and capable of outstandingly realistic dynamics and deep, accurate bass when required. As close as you can get to a notionally perfect replay system.
What are your thoughts, be they good, bad or indifferent?
Gordon Steadman
26-12-2014, 14:42
No3 for effort:)
dantheman91
26-12-2014, 14:51
3..............................Might not be of taste to some but have grown to love it:lol::eyebrows:
My 1 may be your 5......and vice versa........what happens then?
My 1 may be your 5......and vice versa........what happens then?
Well, it is a subjective scale...But I have to say I don't go along with this 'we all hear differently' malarkey. It's certainly not true in my experience. We might differ over trivial aspects but a good sound is a good sound, regardless.
I mean, bear in mind that you can get to a place in this hobby where you can't hear the woods for the trees, to coin a phrase. I suppose we've all heard dreadful systems that their proud owners' think are wonderful (until they eventually wake up to it, which they almost always do in the end), that's not the same thing at all.
I suppose we all have "our" sound.... i.e what we like and our systems are voiced around what we perceive to be the way it should sound, be it Rock, Pop, Jazz, Classical etc. If I hear a system that does what mine does, but does it better I would give it a 5. I might hear a system which has nothing inherently wrong with it, but does not do what I expect a system to do and does not do sound like mine.....how many points should that one get?
3..............................Might not be of taste to some but have grown to love it:lol::eyebrows:
What if I thought your system was a 5, would I be right and you wrong?
Firebottle
26-12-2014, 15:47
I think it's a very good suggestion Martin, it has crossed my mind before that something like this might be useful.
Of course it is always going to be subjective, not least because of the listening experience of whoever is doing the rating. I always find it difficult to describe a system sound by the usual adjectives, they are going to vary in the subjective meaning with different people anyway.
I will throw my oar in and suggest that most people on here have a 3 to 4 system ;)
:cool: Alan
Mr Kipling
26-12-2014, 16:07
I have my own and categorize everything into the following:
Awesome
Fab
Good
OK
Shite
Utter Shite
Absolute Shite
Comprehensively covers everything for me.
Martin Colloms tried this, or something like this before. It was complete nonsense IMO..... See http://colloms.com/pages/review.aspx.
I like your suggestion better in fact because it doesn't try to maintain comparative parity. A bit like me saying that meal was an X out of 10. Good shorthand for how much I liked it, but not attempting to rank and standardise assessment like Martin Colloms did (and failed to make meaningful)
walpurgis
26-12-2014, 16:56
Every time I hear my system I'm gobstruck or is that awesmacked? :scratch:
I. If I hear a system that does what mine does, but does it better I would give it a 5. I might hear a system which has nothing inherently wrong with it, but does not do what I expect a system to do and does not do sound like mine.....how many points should that one get?
It's not about nuances. You might have two systems which both score a '3' but one is vinyl into a SET amp and folded horn system and the other is active pro studio monitors fed digital. They will both give entirely different presentations of the same music but both still have the inherent properties of the '3' system.
awkwardbydesign
26-12-2014, 17:08
Well, it is a subjective scale...But I have to say I don't go along with this 'we all hear differently' malarkey.
I'm sorry, but you're talking out of your ear trumpet. These are my wife's and my (very basic) hearing test results. Mine is the 2nd test.
http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m604/awkwardbydesign/Image_zps9a4b7bc8.jpg (http://s1134.photobucket.com/user/awkwardbydesign/media/Image_zps9a4b7bc8.jpg.html)http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m604/awkwardbydesign/Image_zpsbdd271e1.jpg (http://s1134.photobucket.com/user/awkwardbydesign/media/Image_zpsbdd271e1.jpg.html)
eisenach
26-12-2014, 17:10
They read just like the grade descriptors for GCSE (MFL particularly). They don't work there and won' work here either !
I'm sorry, but you're talking out of your ear trumpet. These are my wife's and my (very basic) hearing test results. Mine is the 2nd test.
http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m604/awkwardbydesign/Image_zps9a4b7bc8.jpg (http://s1134.photobucket.com/user/awkwardbydesign/media/Image_zps9a4b7bc8.jpg.html)http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/m604/awkwardbydesign/Image_zpsbdd271e1.jpg (http://s1134.photobucket.com/user/awkwardbydesign/media/Image_zpsbdd271e1.jpg.html)
That doesn't mean one of you will hear a good sound and the other a bad sound, though. I think the fundamental 'rightness' or not of the sound will still come through even if you have a lot of HF hearing loss. I think we instinctively react to a good sound, our bodies/brains know it long before we conciously think 'hey this is sounding really good'.
5. Outstanding - Has all the properties of the Very Good system but is optimally set up in every respect, truly wide-band, and capable of outstandingly realistic dynamics and deep, accurate bass when required. As close as you can get to a notionally perfect replay system.
I recognise that description from somewhere… ;)
Marco.
They read just like the grade descriptors for GCSE (MFL particularly). They don't work there and won' work here either !
Why don't they work for GCSE and what is MFL?
I recognise that description from somewhere… ;)
Marco.
Nah yours only score a '4' - underachiever ;)
'4' is hard to get though really. I've been at it for almost 30 years still barely scraping a '3' on a good day.
Lol! :eyebrows:
You defo used some of this stuff in your review of my system:
Has all the properties of the Very Good system but is optimally set up in every respect, truly wide-band, and capable of outstandingly realistic dynamics and deep, accurate bass when required.
Anyway, it’s just a giggle. I use one benchmark when judging a hi-fi system: how close it gets to accurately and believably reproducing the sound of real instruments and voices - and I use my considerable experience of listening to such (by attending various types of live music events many times every year), as the benchmark for judging that.
Essentially, when listening to someone’s hi-fi system, the question I always ask myself is, based on the above, ‘How convincing/REAL does this sound?’ In that respect, it matters not a jot about what I like or dislike, as I’m not into hi-fi to create a falsely euphonic sound. Therefore, fortunately achieving palpable realism for me is not only the holy grail, but also what I like and thus strive for with my own system :)
Marco.
This is a difficult subject as there are very different systems and owners out there.
During the years I have encountered some serious systems in dedicated listening rooms that are remarkable and all things to all men but eventually lack the most important factor ..TADAA.. music. And by this I'm not referring to any FE approach or terminology, just to the fact that some systems are capable to deliver and some not.
I also think that this is not necessary bound to resolution, scale, extension etc. Some very capable systems are small/medium sized ones but still continue to impress and I have learned that this is related to the system balance. Same with the big systems out there and this leads to the question of synergy including the components as well as their settings and the room itself. In that respect I find it bit weird that these scales/metrics always mention at some point details like the bass/full-range capabilities etc but usually miss the most important factors. How this can be written down anyway? :)
Mr Kipling
26-12-2014, 18:20
What about a panel of 10 "experts" where 8 might think amplifier A sounds AWESOME, and yet the other 2 don't?
I think we do all hear different, to some extent. Again I'll ask why the difference between Eastern and Western music? Why is Eastern music so perccusive and Western melodic? I know it's a generalization but it makes me think that we all look for different things in music. I don't like most metal genres, but obviously others do. Some will think that the sound eminating from their Bose cd player with Wave Technology is as good as it gets - others won't.
I don't things are so black and white to suggest that we do all hear the same.
awkwardbydesign
26-12-2014, 18:25
That doesn't mean one of you will hear a good sound and the other a bad sound, though. I think the fundamental 'rightness' or not of the sound will still come through even if you have a lot of HF hearing loss. I think we instinctively react to a good sound, our bodies/brains know it long before we conciously think 'hey this is sounding really good'.
I'm afraid it does. Sibilance that kills me is inaudible to her. The old CRT colour TV line whistle that sometimes made me leave the room (literally!) was inaudible to her. And her sister! Sometimes you have to actually experience these things; theorising, or opining, are meaningless without that.
I'm frequently surprised by comments by people who can't hear things, that they are inaudible. Only to you!
EDIT:
It's not so much her hearing LOSS that is the problem; it's my hearing PEAK.
Gordon Steadman
26-12-2014, 18:34
This is a difficult subject as there are very different systems and owners out there.
During the years I have encountered some serious systems in dedicated listening rooms that are remarkable and all things to all men but eventually lack the most important factor ..TADAA.. music. And by this I'm not referring to any FE approach or terminology, just to the fact that some systems are capable to deliver and some not.
I also think that this is not necessary bound to resolution, scale, extension etc. Some very capable systems are small/medium sized ones but still continue to impress and I have learned that this is related to the system balance. In that respect I find it bit weird that these scales/metrics always mention at some point the bass/full-range capabilities etc but usually miss the most important factors. How this can be written down anyway? :)
I suspect that the magic word is missing from so many systems. I have said before that the most expensive, most carefully set up system I have ever heard was absolute pants when it comes to conveying the feel and emotion in the sort of music I listen to. It was impressive with movies though. My little snug system leaves it for dead and I get totally lost in the music. It's just thrown together to fit round the desk.
Its clear that we all hear different things or we wouldn't call this a subjectivist forum, we would all just get stuff that measures accurately and assume that it sounds right - we would all be objectivists. Richard (Pinkie) and I are cases in point. What he calls pipe and slippers, I call accurate, musical and non fatiguing. I haven't heard his system but strongly suspect that it would be too in yer face for me.
Ranking systems only work for the individual. If it turns out our tastes and reaction to sounds are similar, then I suppose a ranking system would work between us, otherwise, a bit of a waste of time for me.
awkwardbydesign
26-12-2014, 18:38
The idea of rating scale is attractive, mainly I think because we like to find patterns in everything, and putting everything in it's own compartment means we no longer have to worry about it. In the same way politicians and newspapers with simple answers are so popular; someone else has done the thinking.
But without a reliable base line I don't see how it is possible, and how do we find a base line?
What about a panel of 10 "experts" where 8 might think amplifier A sounds AWESOME, and yet the other 2 don't?
I think we do all hear different, to some extent. Again I'll ask why the difference between Eastern and Western music? Why is Eastern music so perccusive and Western melodic? I know it's a generalization but it makes me think that we all look for different things in music. I don't like most metal genres, but obviously others do. Some will think that the sound eminating from their Bose cd player with Wave Technology is as good as it gets - others won't.
I don't things are so black and white to suggest that we do all hear the same.
I agree, but for me something either sounds right or it doesn’t. There is no grey area.
For example, I’d love to invite a professional piano/drum/trumpet/guitar (choose whatever instrument you like), player into my house and let them judge how close my system replicates the sound of their chosen instrument - or better still - make an audiophile recording of them playing their OWN instrument, then let them hear it reproduced through my system and judge how close that sounds to what they’re used to hearing when playing the instrument live and un-amplified.
If a professional pianist, for example, then remarks that the recording of his Steinway, reproduced by my system, sounds like HIS Steinway (or indeed very close to such), then that for me is when I'd know that my system would be delivering the goods! In that respect, it’s not about ‘preferences in sound', but in actuality what is REAL and what ISN'T :exactly:
Marco.
Someone having damaged hearing versus someone who doesn't is not the same as two people with undamaged hearing having mutually exclusive views about the sound of a system. How often does the latter actually happen?
Lets say X and Y go round to listen to Z's system. now X might give it a rating of 4 and Y might give it four. But you would never get a situation where X gave it a 1 and Y gave it a 4
This is about the fundamental quality of the sound produced and not about the presentation. I appreciate that is a narrow distinction but it exists nonetheless. For example you may dislike electrostatics, find their balance of compromises not right for your preference, but you could still rate a system fronted by electrostatics highly, 4 or even 5, if the quality of the reproduction is high enough.
If a professional pianist, for example, then remarks that the recording of his Steinway, reproduced by my system, sounds like HIS Steinway (or indeed very close to such), then that for me is when I'd know that my system would be delivering the goods! In that respect, it’s not about ‘preferences in sound', but in actuality what is REAL and what ISN'T :exactly:
Don't remember where but have read that actually professionals have very different approach to "real" and many times are not experts of listening music as we are, this is because their listening impressions comes mostly from their own playing very near the instruments. This does not mean that they cannot do it but their point of view is bit saturated nevertheless. This actually might be the case, e.g. when considering the violin or trumpet players and their role in the equation of making music. They hear things accurately but.. :D
What he calls pipe and slippers, I call accurate, musical and non fatiguing. I haven't heard his system but strongly suspect that it would be too in yer face for me.
How often do you attend live acoustic performances of music, Gordon? If you do it regularly and so intrinsically *know* how, say a violin or cello sounds, and if your hi-fi system softens/reduces the vibrancy and impact of that sound, then by definition it is not accurate.
You might consider it as ‘accurate’, but in reality, accuracy has very definitive qualifying criteria.
Marco.
Don't remember where but have read that actually professionals have very different approach to "real" and many times are not experts of listening music as we are, this is because their listening impressions comes mostly from their own playing very near the instruments. This does not mean that they cannot do it but their point of view is bit saturated nevertheless. This actually might be the case, e.g. when considering the violin or trumpet players and their role in the equation of making music. They hear things accurately but.. :D
Sure, Mika, that’s definitely the case, but there is your ‘average musician', and there are also musicians who are discerning about sound quality. I would contend that, say, a classically trained professional pianist would intrinsically know how a piano sounds, and thus be in a pretty good position to offer an expert opinion of such when reproduced via a hi-fi system :)
I would certainly apportion rather more credibility to their opinion of what was considered as ‘accurate’, than what constitutes as such with the use of any measurement apparatus.
Marco.
Indeed. Measurements, we do not wanna go there :doh:
Gordon Steadman
26-12-2014, 19:12
How often do you attend live acoustic performances of music, Gordon? If you do it regularly and so intrinsically *know* how, say a violin or cello sounds, and if your hi-fi system softens/reduces the vibrancy and impact of that sound, then by definition it is not accurate.
You might consider it as ‘accurate’, but in reality, accuracy has very definitive qualifying criteria.
Marco.
As I made my living by making and repairing musical instruments, strings, brass and woodwind, I think I have some idea of how they sound. I also play guitar and piano myself.
In the UK I would be listening to live music at least twice a week and enjoyed joining in on occasion. My own recordings of my instruments were used to assess the accuracy of my hi-fi. I didn't rely on aural memory which is notoriously unreliable no matter how many times it is repeated.
My hi-fi doesn't soften sound, it reproduces it to my satisfaction, one of the reasons it has remained almost unchanged for 20 years.
My hi-fi doesn't soften sound, it reproduces it to my satisfaction, one of the reasons it has remained almost unchanged for 20 years.
I’m sure it does, but is the sound it produces genuinely lifelike? That’s a rather different thing.
As an experienced musician, you know how piercing/shocking the sound of, say, a trumpet sounds, in real life, when heard up close, or the sheer scale and visceral impact of a kick drum. If your (read as ‘one’s’) hi-fi system *notably* dilutes that effect [I stress notably because all hi-fi systems do to some degree], then it is far from being accurate.
That’s why it’s far easier building a hi-fi system that majors on personal sonic satisfaction than on genuine musical accuracy :)
One of the main criticisms I have of most of hi-fi systems I hear is that they sound too ‘soft’, lacking the ability to replicate the dynamics produced by real instruments, but that’s not because mine is ‘in yer face’… ;)
Marco.
Beaufort has one, Richter has one, so I thought I would try my hand. It might be useful as shorthand, so you could say 'I heard a system made up of such and such and rated it a '3' instead of having to write a load of waffle to describe it.
So here it is the System for Subjective System Rating (or 3SR in short hand ;) ):
1. Inadequate - flawed system that has timing and/or distortion issues, not pleasant to listen to with anything but the most bland and anodyne programme. A relief to switch it off and sit in silence
2. Adequate - tidy sounding system that has no audible flaws but never amounts to anything more than sound coming out of speakers. No 'wow' moments, nothing to write home about but pleasant to listen to with all but the most demanding programme. You will not find yourself captivated, though, and will soon be looking for other distractions like a magazine to read whilst you listen.
3. Good - Builds on the adequate system by sounding a bit special, able to deliver the odd 'wow' moment and capable of giving some insight in terms of reproducing the recorded acoustic and the tone/timbre of instruments. Individual notes attract your attention in the way they ring and decay, involving you in the sound and suspending your disbelief. Most of the time you forget you are listening to a mechanical reproduction. A system you can sit and listen to without the need for other distractions.
4. Very Good - Has all the properties of the Good system but heightened. A system that will really grab your attention and hold it, no matter what the programme. A sound that is always quite clearly a re-played recording of real events rather than just air being moved by loudspeakers. A benchmark system that will wow civilians into dumbstruck awe and which even the jaded enthusiast will not easily forget listening to.
5. Outstanding - Has all the properties of the Very Good system but is optimally set up in every respect, truly wide-band, and capable of outstandingly realistic dynamics and deep, accurate bass when required. As close as you can get to a notionally perfect replay system.
What are your thoughts, be they good, bad or indifferent?
Load of nonsense. :ner:
Gordon Steadman
26-12-2014, 19:38
I
That’s why it’s far easier building a hi-fi system that majors on personal sonic satisfaction than on genuine musical accuracy :)
I find that to be the most important thing. I don't care how 'accurate' it is when it comes right down to it, I only care if it makes me enjoy the music. What is musical accuracy anyway?
I find that to be the most important thing. I don't care how 'accurate' it is, I only care if it makes me enjoy the music.
Yet you wrote earlier, when referring to Richard’s opinion of your system:
What he calls pipe and slippers, I call accurate, musical and non fatiguing.
Therefore, you appear to be contradicting yourself a little, no? You can’t not care about accuracy, yet use it as a reference point with which to judge the sound of your system.
What is musical accuracy anyway?
That’s easy, and I’ve touched on it already: when reproduced through your hi-fi system, a recording of a piano genuinely sounds like a REAL piano (or as close to that as possible), and the same goes for any other musical instrument. The arbiter of that, IMO, would be professional musicians, who use play those instruments, day in day out, for a living (or your own ‘musical memory’, based on an extended experience of listening to live acoustic music) :)
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
26-12-2014, 19:55
Yet you wrote earlier, when referring to Richard’s opinion of your system:
Therefore, you appear to be contradicting yourself a little, no? You can’t not care about accuracy, yet use it as a reference point with which to judge the sound of your system :)
That’s easy, and I’ve touched on it already: when reproduced through your system, a recording of a piano genuinely sounds like a REAL piano (or as close to that as possible), and the same goes for any other musical instrument - and the arbiter of that, IMO, would be professional musicians, who use play those instruments, day in day out, for a living :)
Marco.
Nope, that isn't MUSICAL accuracy, that is just accuracy. There are systems that measure superbly that just don't do it musically. I did say earlier that accuracy was important of course, but if that accuracy somehow doesn't convey the music then its a dead system. Its just hi-fi which is a whole different hobby.
This is why its all subjective after the tech guys have done their stuff.
eisenach
26-12-2014, 20:00
Why don't they work for GCSE and what is MFL?
MFL = Modern Foreign Languages i.e. French /German / ... GCSE
Speaking (and Writing) language tests have been marked by teachers according to criteria defined by similar descriptors. You try going to a teachers' exam board training meeting and getting a consenus with regards to the application of the descriptors to a sample candidate's piece of work; the range of resulting interpretations is depressing ! As I said, they don't really work; people's understanding of how they apply are too disparate.
Nope, that isn't MUSICAL accuracy, that is just accuracy.
How can it not be considered as MUSICAL accuracy when a hi-fi system makes a recording of a piano sound like a REAL piano? :scratch:
That’s as ‘musical' as it gets!
Marco.
reproduced through your hi-fi system, a recording of a piano genuinely sounds like a REAL piano (or as close to that as possible), and the same goes for any other musical instrument. The arbiter of that, IMO, would be professional musicians, who use play those instruments, day in day out, for a living (or your own ‘musical memory’, based on an extended experience of listening live acoustic music) :)
Marco.
I think the best we can do with a hi-fi is make it sound like what it is: a recording of a real piano. That might sound obvious but it is not that easy to do on practice. This is where Gordon's #musical# comes in. A system that only rated a '2' would make a pleasant noise that sounds like a piano, a better system 3 or above and you start to distinguish that it is a real piano recorded in a real environment. This is easier for us to believe and consequently more enjoyable to listen to so we call that system 'musical' and the 2 rated system has piano that is a bit dead or lifeless by comparison.
Gordon Steadman
26-12-2014, 20:10
How can it not be considered as MUSICAL accuracy when a hi-fi system makes a recording of a piano sound like a REAL piano? :scratch:
That’s as ‘musical' as it gets!
Marco.
What happens if that piano sounding noise is uninvolving and doesn't tell its musical story? There are those who tell us this is possible and some who deny it. I believe they are called subjectivists and objectivists.
I just listen to music nowadays. I suppose I'm a musicivist.
What happens if that piano sounding noise is uninvolving and doesn't tell its musical story?
Sorry, Gordon, IMO, that’s bollocks. It either sounds like a piano (as deemed by an expert, such a professional musician, able to confirm such) or it doesn’t.
Bear in mind that I’m simply talking about a ‘piano sound’, and that which is considered as either real or false, by said expert, not the intricacies of a complete musical performance.
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
26-12-2014, 20:24
Sorry, Gordon, IMO, that’s bollocks. It either sounds like a piano (as deemed by an expert, such a professional musician, able to confirm such) or it doesn’t.
Bear in mind that I’m simply talking about a ‘piano sound’, and that which is considered as either real or false, by said expert, not the intricacies of a complete musical performance.
Marco.
There you go, something else we disagree on:lol:
But there is stuff we agree on as well so that's about par for the course, human beans being what they are:)
Lol… Well, let’s just say that if we sat, for example, Maurizio Pollini, down in front of your system, and he was in awe at how real his piano recordings sounded, then I’d be pretty sure that your system was ‘accurate’ at reproducing musical instruments - or at least classical piano! ;)
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
26-12-2014, 20:33
Lol… Well, let’s just say that if we sat, for example, Maurizio Pollini, down in front of your system, and he was in awe at how real his piano recordings sounded, then I’d be pretty sure that your system was ‘accurate’ at reproducing musical instruments - or at least classical piano! ;)
Marco.
Who?:eyebrows:
I've decided this must be one of those daft forum games where there is a prize for who has the last post! What do I get?
walpurgis
26-12-2014, 20:40
I wonder where this thread will head. One thing's for sure. There'll be no consensus. :eek:
Who?:eyebrows:
Look him up ;)
I've decided this must be one of those daft forum games where there is a prize for who has the last post! What do I get?
I’ve got some cold sprouts here if you’d like? :D
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
26-12-2014, 20:51
I’ve got some cold sprouts here if you’d like? :D
Marco.
I wish you'd said earlier, I could have put them in the turkey curry we had for lunch. It lacked a bit of crunch as the garlic bread was gluten free and it never crisps up properly. Pigged ourselves silly on it though, the neighbours will know what we've been eating.
I think the best we can do with a hi-fi is make it sound like what it is: a recording of a real piano. That might sound obvious but it is not that easy to do on practice. This is where Gordon's #musical# comes in. A system that only rated a '2' would make a pleasant noise that sounds like a piano, a better system 3 or above and you start to distinguish that it is a real piano recorded in a real environment. This is easier for us to believe and consequently more enjoyable to listen to so we call that system 'musical' and the 2 rated system has piano that is a bit dead or lifeless by comparison.
To an extent, I agree. However, I think that we’re rather in danger of ‘over-thinking’ this. For me it’s very simple: the noise your system makes is either an accurate representation of the sound of the instrument(s) its reproducing, or it isn’t. In reality, it’ll be varying degrees of the latter, as no system can get it absolutely right.
However, IMO, when a system gets it as right as possible, then ‘musicality and emotion’ will naturally fall into place, as there is no magic fairy dust involved here.
Marco.
I wish you'd said earlier, I could have put them in the turkey curry we had for lunch. It lacked a bit of crunch as the garlic bread was gluten free and it never crisps up properly. Pigged ourselves silly on it though, the neighbours will know what we've been eating.
Lol - are you onto the curry thing already? We had goose for Xmas day, and the same thing again today, which just about polished it off. When we have turkey on New Year’s Day, with gravy and all the usual trimmings, we’ll probably enjoy the same thing again for a couple of days, before the curry/Chinese/Thai thing starts :)
Btw, as a point of note, home-made Thai green curry, with turkey breast, is quite superb!
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
26-12-2014, 21:14
Lol - are you onto the curry thing already? We had goose for Xmas day, and the same thing again today, which just about polished it off. When we have turkey on New Year’s Day, with gravy and all the usual trimmings, we’ll probably enjoy the same thing again for a couple of days, before the curry/Chinese/Thai thing starts :)
Btw, as a point of note, home-made Thai green curry, with turkey breast, is quite superb!
Marco.
We already had two turkey dinners and there are another three portions in the fridge!! Cold with mash tomorrow probably although the temperature is dropping fast so I may change our minds.
I'm surprised Al hasn't joined in with sprouts being mentioned.
And so to bed. All this food and liquid is making this poor old man tired.
No worries - hope all those sprouts don’t keep you up trumping all night, otherwise it’ll give the old saying of ‘may all your ups and downs be between the sheets’ a whole new meaning! :eyebrows: :goodnight:
Marco.
awkwardbydesign
26-12-2014, 23:35
Someone having damaged hearing versus someone who doesn't is not the same as two people with undamaged hearing having mutually exclusive views about the sound of a system. How often does the latter actually happen?
I think you'll find that everyone above a certain age has "damaged hearing". And having a rising response is hardly damage, just a variation. Which is my point; we all have differences.
Sorry for the delay, I 've been watching "Cockneys V Zombies". Class!
walpurgis
26-12-2014, 23:41
I'm certainly knocking on a bit (by some people's standards), but I can still tell a 'peaky' speaker. I think it's about how the harmonic wavefront presents itself to the ear. That's why 'supertweeters' work, even if you can't actually hear much (if any) output from them. But they have a perceptable effect, no doubt about that.
(cockneys vs. zombies? I have serious doubts about your discernment and good taste. :D)
I think you'll find that everyone above a certain age has "damaged hearing". And having a rising response is hardly damage, just a variation. Which is my point; we all have differences.
Sorry for the delay, I 've been watching "Cockneys V Zombies". Class!
Thing is, does this matter that much? If you could turn a bad sounding system into a good sounding system simply by boosting or cutting the HF level then yes. But I don't agree that you can. Plus 95% at least of the musical information is below 7 KHz in a range that we can pretty much all hear regardless of age-related degradation or skewed HF response in our ears.
It matters. Have you ever tried it? I have with a system -3db at 12Khz. If you don't think this makes a difference then you are seriously mistaken. Liking it is a different discussion, a system limited like this is not High Fidelity and not very good.
You gotta love the human race, always eager to categorise :D
Whilst categorising stuff is generally useful (more so in some instances), in this example it's akin to digitising music, regardless of the resolution it can only ever be an approximation of the analogue signal, and so it is with this. It's a good effort though Martin and would be useful as a rough guide.
It matters. Have you ever tried it? I have with a system -3db at 12Khz. If you don't think this makes a difference then you are seriously mistaken. Liking it is a different discussion, a system limited like this is not High Fidelity and not very good.
Yes I have. I have proper speakers with top and mid level controls ;) Seriously yes I have used vintage speakers that probably did not get as high as 12Khz. I agree it is different, I don't agree that it fundamentally changes the quality of the sound. The quality, or lack of it is in the signal fed to the speakers, not in the speakers themselves. I am sure you like I have swapped in some cheap little Wharfies or similar for whatever monster speaker we were using previously and been surprised that a lot of the quality still comes through.
Clive197
27-12-2014, 11:36
I believe mine is a 4. Actually the electronic equipment is probably a 3 but the speakers, cabling and correct set-up turn it into the 4.
I don't believe perfection is achievable, therefor a 5 is unlikely but ha-ho who knows.
A friend of mine has spent a huge some of money on his system but sadly IMHO his speakers lets the side down to my ears and there comes the rub. All this is subjective. You can't have a Rating Scale without common ground and all of us singing from the same hymn sheet.
I think we are all singing from the same sheet it is just that personal tastes confuse this. You say your friend has a quality system but the speakers let things down - for you but maybe not for him. Nevertheless it has not prevented you from acknowledging that his system fundamentally has a high quality sound.
awkwardbydesign
27-12-2014, 12:12
I think we are all singing from the same sheet
Apart from me, of course.:D
awkwardbydesign
27-12-2014, 12:17
I think we are all singing from the same sheet it is just that personal tastes confuse this. You say your friend has a quality system but the speakers let things down - for you but maybe not for him. Nevertheless it has not prevented you from acknowledging that his system fundamentally has a high quality sound.
Where did he say that? I read it completely differently, viz. he spent lots of money WITHOUT achieving a high quality sound.
Where did he say that? I read it completely differently, viz. he spent lots of money WITHOUT achieving a high quality sound.
A friend of mine has spent a huge some of money on his system but sadly IMHO his speakers lets the side down to my ears
Implies to me that it was good but Clive just doesn't like the speakers. Perhaps he will clarify.
walpurgis
27-12-2014, 12:36
It matters. Have you ever tried it? I have with a system -3db at 12Khz. If you don't think this makes a difference then you are seriously mistaken. Liking it is a different discussion, a system limited like this is not High Fidelity and not very good.
Celestion speakers using just the HF1300 at the top end (like the Ditton 15) have zero output from just above 13kHz. It doesn't stop the speakers being musical to listen to though.
I know that 'monitor' manufacturers like Rogers, IMF and Spendor for instance, added a supertweeter. It did enhance the sound, but I think it was largely done so they could quote an extended response.
Clive197
27-12-2014, 13:01
A friend of mine has spent a huge some of money on his system but sadly IMHO his speakers lets the side down to my ears
Implies to me that it was good but Clive just doesn't like the speakers. Perhaps he will clarify.
Your correct Martin, his speakers are not to my taste. My friend however loves the sound of his system, which shows how we all have different perceptions and that any rating system is flawed.
awkwardbydesign
27-12-2014, 14:36
This thread is starting to remind me of one of those peace talks, middle east or northern Ireland, where they can't even agree on the questions or starting point, never mind answers!
Gordon Steadman
27-12-2014, 14:58
This thread is starting to remind me of one of those peace talks, middle east or northern Ireland, where they can't even agree on the questions or starting point, never mind answers!
Have I won the Brussels yet?
awkwardbydesign
27-12-2014, 15:46
Have I won the Brussels yet?
If you're not careful you'll be awarded a cat!
S’ok, Gordon gets his fair share of pussy as it is ;)
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
27-12-2014, 17:18
S’ok, Gordon gets his fair share of pussy as it is ;)
Marco.
I share my bed with five every night.
Ah, but can you make them all purr? :eyebrows:
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
27-12-2014, 19:18
Ah, but can you make them all purr? :eyebrows:
Marco.
The problem is keeping them off my stomach and sharpening their claws on my ribs.
I know exactly what you mean - it’s the same with our three! :)
Marco.
awkwardbydesign
27-12-2014, 19:24
At last we're getting somewhere. We need a rating scale for kittens, which probably has more chance of success. Or at least makes more sense.:eyebrows:
Gordon Steadman
27-12-2014, 19:33
At last we're getting somewhere. We need a rating scale for kittens, which probably has more chance of success. Or at least makes more sense.:eyebrows:
An easy job.
1. Slim fit and a hunter
2. Getting fat, fit and a hunter
3. Slim, unfit and a lazy git.
4. Very thin indeed and near the end.
5. 558 years old, still rather tasty.
As I’m in the art/picture framing business, we offer a pet portraiture service to our clients, carried out in various mediums (oils on canvas, watercolours, etc) by artists who specialise in that subject matter.
A girl (a cat lover) said to me once, in a completely straight face, when I was describing the service to her: ‘That’s great, so how much would it cost to paint my little pussy?’
You can imagine my reply - of course I was very shy and embarrassed! ;)
Marco.
Celestion speakers using just the HF1300 at the top end (like the Ditton 15) have zero output from just above 13kHz. It doesn't stop the speakers being musical to listen to though.
Actually the output falls steeply above 13Khz and they are -3db down at 15Khz so not zero output. Given the all analogue and LP era they where produced in their limited HF output probably wouldn't have been noticed or been an issue anyhow...IMHO people are different, they hear things differently, look for different things in the music and have different 'likes'. Don't see how you can assign a 'scale' to that.
Yes I have. I have proper speakers with top and mid level controls ;) Seriously yes I have used vintage speakers that probably did not get as high as 12Khz. I agree it is different, I don't agree that it fundamentally changes the quality of the sound. The quality, or lack of it is in the signal fed to the speakers, not in the speakers themselves. I am sure you like I have swapped in some cheap little Wharfies or similar for whatever monster speaker we were using previously and been surprised that a lot of the quality still comes through.
How can it not change the 'quality'. Limiting the bandwidth is like listening with blocked ears, sure you can enjoy the music and recognize the tune but you are missing out on a whole load of information. Quality can only be put into context when measured against something of a similar kind. When I tried this, bandwidth limiting an amplifier, the 'quality' took a substantial hit. But this just highlights we are all different, vive la difference and all that! :)
Gordon Steadman
28-12-2014, 10:32
Much as I like the HF1300 - I have two pairs of speaker that use it - I do prefer it, just, with a bit of help at the top. KEF T27 in my case. I can't actually hear the output but it seems to add a bit of 'air' . Pretty marginal though, still my favourite tweeter.
IMHO people are different, they hear things differently, look for different things in the music and have different 'likes'. Don't see how you can assign a 'scale' to that.
Indeed, but as I said earlier, if you set your system up/‘voice it’, as it were, according not necessarily to what you ‘like’, but what you consider is accurate to the sound of real instruments and voices, and strive for attaining maximum resolution from the playback of recordings (by ‘opening the window’ as widely as possible), then it acts as a faithful tool for the purpose of achieving high-fidelity, as well as musical enjoyment.
That is, if your system is used for such a purpose, rather than simply as a ‘sound effects device’, tailored to appease your euphonic sound preferences.
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
28-12-2014, 11:04
Indeed, but as I said earlier, if you set your system up/‘voice it’, as it were, according not necessarily to what you ‘like’, but what you consider is accurate to the sound of real instruments and voices, and strive for attaining maximum resolution from the playback of recordings (by ‘opening the window’ as widely as possible), then it acts as a faithful tool for the purpose of achieving high-fidelity, as well as musical enjoyment.
That is, if your system is used for such a purpose, rather than simply as a ‘sound effects device’, tailored to appease your euphonic sound preferences.
Marco.
But surely, the only way to do that is with measurements:eyebrows:
If you are using your ears to set it up, you are using your own interpretation of the 'real' sound, just the same as I'm using mine. We may well achieve a completely different result but still both get the maximum enjoyment from it in spite of our different interpretations of reality. When it comes to it, the enjoyment of music should be the first aim?
An interesting thread on TAS discusses personal maps of reality.
awkwardbydesign
28-12-2014, 11:25
But surely, the only way to do that is with measurements:eyebrows:
But surely the problem with measurements is that their parameters are set using subjective criteria? Who decides which measurements matter, at what level to set them, etc?
And their interpretation is also subjective. I believe in measurements where appropriate (voltage, current, dimensions, etc) but not usually for "quality".
But I think we can all agree on kitten qualities. Still not measurable, though. :eyebrows:
Gordon Steadman
28-12-2014, 11:33
But surely the problem with measurements is that their parameters are set using subjective criteria? Who decides which measurements matter, at what level to set them, etc?
And their interpretation is also subjective. I believe in measurements where appropriate (voltage, current, dimensions, etc) but not usually for "quality".
But I think we can all agree on kitten qualities. Still not measurable, though. :eyebrows:
Yup, its all claws and effect:rolleyes:
But surely, the only way to do that is with measurements…
That’s one way, if you consider the results to be acceptable, but you can also use your accumulated experience of listening to the sound of real instruments and voices, in a variety of situations - your ‘musical memory’, as it were - to ‘voice’ a system in order that it satisfies on that level.
That’s what I’ve done, minus any form of measurement apparatus, and have achieved superb results :)
If you are using your ears to set it up, you are using your own interpretation of the 'real' sound, just the same as I'm using mine. We may well achieve a completely different result but still both get the maximum enjoyment from it in spite of our different interpretations of reality. When it comes to it, the enjoyment of music should be the first aim?
Of course. However, what I’m getting at is that some people just build a system to create a ‘sound’ that they like (especially those who use tone controls. graphic equalisers and such like), regardless of whether it’s actually a faithful representation of the real sound of instruments and voices, or what’s on the recordings they’re listening to - and that’s fine, but it’s NOT high-fidelity.
In essence, what I’m getting at is when you make decisions to ‘voice’ your system, in terms of equipment selection, cables, etc, do you do it with the goal of simply creating a sound that pleases your ears, or with the intention of extracting maximum information from the recordings you’re listening to, and for them to be reproduced as accurately (by your definition of the word) as possible?
For example, everyone has crap sounding recordings in their collection, so as far as I’m concerned, I want my system to reveal their inherent nastiness in all its glory, simply because that is what is there, rather than ‘sugar coat’ the sound, by employing the use of tone controls, ‘warmer sounding’ cables, valves (or whatever), in order to make the sound more ‘listenable’.
*That* is what maximising resolution is all about, and one is rewarded handsomely by adopting that approach, when replaying superlative recordings, as they will sound truly stunning, instead of that effect being diluted, due to the sound having been ‘rounded off’, as a result of ameliorating the nastiness of the bad ones.
If you’re in the camp who just like a ’nice sound', then I’d suggest you’re the type who builds a system simply for it to create the ‘sound preferences’ you enjoy with your chosen music, but if you’re in the maximum resolution/open-window camp, then your system acts as both a faithful device for accurately reproducing recordings (in the process making voices and instruments sound as lifelike as possible), and as something which creates (for you) enjoyable music.
Both are ‘valid’ ways of using your system, as at the end of the day it’s your money, so you can spend it as you wish, but only one approach results in creating a semblance of instruments and voices sounding as close as possible to the real thing.
Marco.
Rothchild
28-12-2014, 11:52
Does a piano sound most 'real' when you're sitting at the keyboard, up the far end looking back towards the player, 8 feet out of the 'front side' looking at the lifted sound board or with your head over the top of the hammers.
Does a piano sound most 'real' in a small room, a big room, a medium room, a concert hall, a pub or a carpark?
Having a reproduction system that does full band +/- xdB is great, as long as you have it reproducing in a room that's at least as flat as that.
Does a piano sound most 'real' when you're sitting at the keyboard, up the far end looking back towards the player, 8 feet out of the 'front side' looking at the lifted sound board or with your head over the top of the hammers.
Does a piano sound most 'real' in a small room, a big room, a medium room, a concert hall, a pub or a carpark?
I’d say it’s about whatever sounds ‘right' to you in the appropriate circumstances. You have to get to a point where you have confidence in your senses and experience, and are not forever fretting over whether something measures 'correctly’ or not.
Having a reproduction system that does full band +/- xdB is great, as long as you have it reproducing in a room that's at least as flat as that.
Sure - the acoustics of the room have to be good enough to show off what the system can do. One can take that as a given. How we go about ‘tuning’ our rooms, in that respect, is probably a subject for another thread :)
Marco.
awkwardbydesign
28-12-2014, 12:24
Yup, its all claws and effect:rolleyes:
:donk:
Indeed, but as I said earlier, if you set your system up/‘voice it’, as it were, according not necessarily to what you ‘like’, but what you consider is accurate to the sound of real instruments and voices, and strive for attaining maximum resolution from the playback of recordings (by ‘opening the window’ as widely as possible), then it acts as a faithful tool for the purpose of achieving high-fidelity, as well as musical enjoyment.
That is, if your system is used for such a purpose, rather than simply as a ‘sound effects device’, tailored to appease your euphonic sound preferences.
Marco.
Ah, yes but no ;) What is 'accurate', I suspect the vast majority of what we listen to has been through many layers of manipulation and editing and produced for mass market consumption. I can't see how you can place accuracy on that or even a personal interpretation of it, its a noble goal to extract the utmost from a recording but ultimately we should not fool ourselves into thinking its anything other than a facsimile.
Ah, yes but no ;) What is 'accurate', I suspect the vast majority of what we listen to has been through many layers of manipulation and editing and produced for mass market consumption.
That’s an old chestnut, Neal. ‘Accurate’ as in what you consider to be as close as possible to the musical information contained on the disc or record you’re listening to, based on your experience of how real instruments and voices should sound.
I’m afraid that’s as good as it gets, but at least if you set out to achieve that goal, rather than creating a deliberate compromise, by choosing a sound that’s simply ‘pleasing to your ears’, but quite obviously not real (say someone who likes the bass and treble on their amp turned all the way up, or deliberately chooses a pair of speakers because they’re bass-heavy, as they ‘like’ the effect), you’ve got a better chance of ending up with a noise emitting from your system that’s a convincing facsimile of how voices and instruments actually sound.
That’s my point :)
Marco.
Rothchild
28-12-2014, 14:39
I’d say it’s about whatever sounds ‘right' to you in the appropriate circumstances. You have to get to a point where you have confidence in your senses and experience, and are not forever fretting over whether something measures 'correctly’ or not.
Marco.
So it s a good system what sounds real or what sounds right? Quite regularly it is asserted that the best system is the one that most 'accurately' represents the real instrument in the real world, but the point i'm making is that there are already a number of decisions that have been made (which may be beneficial or detrimental to said accuracy) before a cut ever even makes it on to the replay media, so regardless of how many gigs one goes to one will have issues in genuinely understanding what's in the performance, what's in the capture and what's in the replay.
It also infers that the metric by which hifi should be measured is only simple acoustic music where exactitude to the source is the primary goal of the recording, what does that mean for dance music, prog rock (or indeed any sort of multitrack processed recording)? Presumably because we have the power to go outside the 'real' with studio tech these types of music are not valid for assessing the quality of HiFi?
I'm not talking about measurement so I'm not sure why you've swung that in to the mix? this is pure subjectivity.
When I sit at one end of a real piano it sounds one way, when I sit at the other end of a real piano it sounds different - but it's still a real piano, when we listen to a system and determine that one portrays reality better than the other is that because of the system or because of the microphone positioning choices of the recording engineer? If it's 'a bit of all of it' how do we stand any chance of having a sensible sense of how much of which bits? Even if we are 'only' subjectively assessing the quality of the (hopefully) uninhibited transfer of signal from the reproduction media to the air around us we need some sort of understanding of how it was captured to be able to determine its 'accuracy' - visiting gigs doesn't teach one much about how microphones sound in different positions.
awkwardbydesign
28-12-2014, 15:02
During the (too many!) years I've had stereo systems, one aspect has been a constant. Every iteration has performed better on some types of music than on others. And my listening choices have swung to and fro with the changes. At the moment choral music (Arvo Part, Faure) sounds good again. Massive Attack and Leftfield less so. So how do I rate my system? 2/5? 1/4? I went to a hifi show some years ago when some version of Quad electrostatics were new (989?) and they sounded lovely with classical music. I asked them to play some electronic stuff; they pulled it after a few seconds, it was awful, even though it could sound brillant on the right system. So what's the rating there?
I can't help wondering whether this thread is on a hiding to nothing. A system which sounds good to me may not necessarily sound quite right to Marco for example, therefore using Martins, or any other rating system for that matter, we are likely to score it differently, the assumption being that we auditioned the system together.
awkwardbydesign
28-12-2014, 17:47
I can't help wondering whether this thread is on a hiding to nothing.
This is why I invoked the kittens.
http://dailypicksandflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jedi-kittens.jpg
Gordon Steadman
28-12-2014, 18:09
This is why I invoked the kittens.
http://dailypicksandflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/jedi-kittens.jpg
Kittens or sprouts - difficult choice.
awkwardbydesign
28-12-2014, 20:19
Kittens or sprouts - difficult choice.
Boiled or baked?
Gordon Steadman
28-12-2014, 20:27
Boiled or baked?
Ah now then. Kitty curry doesn't appeal much so I suppose it had better be the green things. Steamed or very slow cooked just under the boil does it for me. I've never had baked sprouts but it might be worth a go.:hmm:
awkwardbydesign
28-12-2014, 21:00
When I was young my mum and I used to go to a Chinese restaurant in Hitchin for lunch. Until we read they were convicted for using cat food. Tasted lovely, BTW.
Perhaps that helped me decide to become vegetarian? :spew: 44 years and counting.
Hi Marc,
So it s a good system what sounds real or what sounds right? Quite regularly it is asserted that the best system is the one that most 'accurately' represents the real instrument in the real world, but the point i'm making is that there are already a number of decisions that have been made (which may be beneficial or detrimental to said accuracy) before a cut ever even makes it on to the replay media, so regardless of how many gigs one goes to one will have issues in genuinely understanding what's in the performance, what's in the capture and what's in the replay.
It also infers that the metric by which hifi should be measured is only simple acoustic music where exactitude to the source is the primary goal of the recording, what does that mean for dance music, prog rock (or indeed any sort of multitrack processed recording)? Presumably because we have the power to go outside the 'real' with studio tech these types of music are not valid for assessing the quality of HiFi?
I'm not talking about measurement so I'm not sure why you've swung that in to the mix? this is pure subjectivity.
When I sit at one end of a real piano it sounds one way, when I sit at the other end of a real piano it sounds different - but it's still a real piano, when we listen to a system and determine that one portrays reality better than the other is that because of the system or because of the microphone positioning choices of the recording engineer? If it's 'a bit of all of it' how do we stand any chance of having a sensible sense of how much of which bits? Even if we are 'only' subjectively assessing the quality of the (hopefully) uninhibited transfer of signal from the reproduction media to the air around us we need some sort of understanding of how it was captured to be able to determine its 'accuracy' - visiting gigs doesn't teach one much about how microphones sound in different positions.
Good post, and you make some valid points that most certainly form part of the ‘picture’ we’re attempting to assess. However, as I said earlier in the thread, there is a danger of ‘overthinking’ things, and where all the ‘what ifs?’ (as outlined above) complicate matters to the point of missing the big picture: creating a system that ticks the right boxes for us.
The process I use for that is most certainly not infallible, but I’m a great believer in the benefits of practical experience being overall more beneficial than anything you’ll find in a textbook or in the readout on test equipment, and so in audio when it comes to ascertaining what type of sound closest resembles that of ‘the real thing’ (voices and acoustic instruments), IMO, there is no substitute for exposing yourself to the sound of that 'real thing’ as often as possible, as by doing so you enable your gut feeling and your ears to know when something sounds intrinsically ‘right’.
That’s the process I’ve used to assemble my system, and the results I’ve obtained I believe speak for themselves :)
Marco.
Hi Richard,
During the (too many!) years I've had stereo systems, one aspect has been a constant. Every iteration has performed better on some types of music than on others. And my listening choices have swung to and fro with the changes. At the moment choral music (Arvo Part, Faure) sounds good again. Massive Attack and Leftfield less so. So how do I rate my system? 2/5? 1/4? I went to a hifi show some years ago when some version of Quad electrostatics were new (989?) and they sounded lovely with classical music. I asked them to play some electronic stuff; they pulled it after a few seconds, it was awful, even though it could sound brillant on the right system. So what's the rating there?
The key is not to create a system that’s simply a ‘one trick pony’… A system that’s been built properly, by someone with discerning ears, should sound GOOD with any kind of music - none should sound poor - and excel with others, usually the listener’s favourite types, as it’s natural to ‘voice’ a system to perform best with your favourite music :)
I totally agree about Quad speakers. They’re fabulous with classical, folk, jazz, acoustic, blues, female and male vocals, but throw some throbbing/heavy rock, grungy indie or pumping dance music at them, and they fall apart - and that is why I’d never use electrostatic speakers. They’re simply too much of a compromise for my (very wide) tastes in music, especially when I want to listen loudly.
At the end of the day, you don’t want a system (or speakers) that dictates to you what music to play, when it should be the other way round!
Marco.
Ah now then. Kitty curry doesn't appeal much so I suppose it had better be the green things. Steamed or very slow cooked just under the boil does it for me. I've never had baked sprouts but it might be worth a go.:hmm:
Kitten Tika Masala is a firm favourite of mine!
I totally agree about Quad speakers. They’re fabulous with classical, folk, jazz, acoustic, blues, female and male vocals, but throw some throbbing/heavy rock, grungy indie or pumping dance music at them, and they fall apart - and that is why I’d never use electrostatic speakers. They’re simply too much of a compromise for my (very wide) tastes in music, especially when I want to listen loudly.
As a Quad ESL user (for the last forty years), I also agree. Fortunately "classical, folk, blues, female and male vocals" (as well as ethnic or 'world' music) form 95% of my musical tastes. I'm not keen on "throbbing/heavy rock, grungy indie or pumping dance music", so I don't need a system that can encompass them.
We all have different list of requirements when it comes to what we want from our audio systems, since no single system can do it all or get it all right. For me tonal accuracy, freedom from colouration, good transient attack and freedom from hangover, and realistic sound-staging are my priorities. Deep bass, the ability to play loud (important to recreate realistic dynamics) are less important to me - and as to PRaT, well I don't really know what that is. I don't recognise it in systems that are supposed to have it, nor do I find myself unable to tap my feet or click my fingers, when appropriate, whilst listening to music on my system.
Ranking? - well at times a '3', at others a '5', and occasionally a '1'!
Gordon Steadman
29-12-2014, 14:37
As a Quad ESL user (for the last forty years), I also agree. Fortunately "classical, folk, blues, female and male vocals" (as well as ethnic or 'world' music) form 95% of my musical tastes. I'm not keen on "throbbing/heavy rock, grungy indie or pumping dance music", so I don't need a system that can encompass them.
We all have different list of requirements when it comes to what we want from our audio systems, since no single system can do it all or get it all right. For me tonal accuracy, freedom from colouration, good transient attack and freedom from hangover, and realistic sound-staging are my priorities. Deep bass, the ability to play loud (important to recreate realistic dynamics) are less important to me - and as to PRaT, well I don't really know what that is. I don't recognise it in systems that are supposed to have it, nor do I find myself unable to tap my feet or click my fingers, when appropriate, whilst listening to music on my system.
Ranking? - well at times a '3', at others a '5', and occasionally a '1'!
Exactly so.
For me, mine is a 4 going on 5 on Macca's scale because it does everything I need brilliantly.
So we are back to 'only something that measures accurately could be considered accurate'.
I listen to music not hi-fi but even so, I know mine reproduces the sounds of the instruments I play and repair entirely to my satisfaction. Frankly, when it comes right down to it though, who cares?
I enjoy my music, that is all that actually matters. For me.
awkwardbydesign
29-12-2014, 14:38
As a Quad ESL user (for the last forty years), I also agree. Fortunately "classical, folk, blues, female and male vocals" (as well as ethnic or 'world' music) form 95% of my musical tastes. I'm not keen on "throbbing/heavy rock, grungy indie or pumping dance music", so I don't need a system that can encompass them.
Unfortunately I do! Everything from Hariprasad Chaurasia (bamboo flute) to Skullflower (the name may be a clue!).
EDIT:
Thinking about it, you may well need such a system. Your tastes may have been moulded by your system as much as the reverse.
Gordon Steadman
29-12-2014, 16:20
Unfortunately I do! Everything from Hariprasad Chaurasia (bamboo flute) to Skullflower (the name may be a clue!).
EDIT:
Thinking about it, you may well need such a system. Your tastes may have been moulded by your system as much as the reverse.
I still listen to the same sort of music as I did before I even had a hi-fi. Sure, I've dabbled with stuff over the years but I've come back to where I started.
The 'best' all purpose pair of speakers I built are now with my nephew who, sadly, has musical tastes that include metal and chicken munching bands. I still speak to him though. KEF B139 bass unit with active crossover to a Quad ESL treble panel. Does the delicate very nicely but moves the walls when he comes all over funny.
awkwardbydesign
29-12-2014, 16:32
I still listen to the same sort of music as I did before I even had a hi-fi. Sure, I've dabbled with stuff over the years but I've come back to where I started.
The 'best' all purpose pair of speakers I built are now with my nephew who, sadly, has musical tastes that include metal and chicken munching bands. I still speak to him though. KEF B139 bass unit with active crossover to a Quad ESL treble panel. Does the delicate very nicely but moves the walls when he comes all over funny.
Lol! Fogey alert!
Having said that I also still like a lot of what I used to like (Quintessence and Neil Young anyone?) but have managed to add to that. Aphex Twin, Camille, Fink, Bevis Frond, Arvo Part, John Tavener. Fogey moving forward!
Or at least sideways.
Gordon Steadman
29-12-2014, 16:37
Lol! Fogey alert!
Having said that I also still like a lot of what I used to like (Quintessence and Neil Young anyone?) but have managed to add to that. Aphex Twin, Camille, Fink, Bevis Frond, Arvo Part, John Tavener. Fogey moving forward!
Or at least sideways.
Fogey?? Dats me :hairmetal:
As a Quad ESL user (for the last forty years), I also agree. Fortunately "classical, folk, blues, female and male vocals" (as well as ethnic or 'world' music) form 95% of my musical tastes. I'm not keen on "throbbing/heavy rock, grungy indie or pumping dance music", so I don't need a system that can encompass them.
We all have different list of requirements when it comes to what we want from our audio systems, since no single system can do it all or get it all right. For me tonal accuracy, freedom from colouration, good transient attack and freedom from hangover, and realistic sound-staging are my priorities. Deep bass, the ability to play loud (important to recreate realistic dynamics) are less important to me - and as to PRaT, well I don't really know what that is. I don't recognise it in systems that are supposed to have it, nor do I find myself unable to tap my feet or click my fingers, when appropriate, whilst listening to music on my system.
Lol - I know ya lurves yer Quads, old chap, and rightly so! :) The bit in bold (realistic dynamics) is what makes me smile and the hairs stand up on the back of my neck, and so is super-important to me.
I do listen to a fair bit of heavy rock and electronic/dance music, so I need speakers that can reproduce deep bass notes, cleanly and with suitable gravitas, especially at levels that pin you to the wall and rattle your intestines. This is especially true when the lads come round for a sesh (like last night when Darren and Luke visited) and we were playing ‘Three Sixty’, by A Perfect Circle, so loudly (but cleanly) it made you sweat!! :D
Trust me, you’d have loved it, tee hee... I might subject you to that, and what I ensure you will be a memorable experience, when you pop over next week :eyebrows: ;)
Marco.
So we are back to 'only something that measures accurately could be considered accurate'.
That’s certainly not what I’ve been saying, anyway… :nono:
What I’m saying is that if you have extensive experience of listening to the acoustic sound of real instruments and voices, as a result of playing instruments yourself and/or attending numerous types of musical performances over the years, then use your ‘musical memory’ of that sound to judge how good your hi-fi system is at delivering a convincing rendition of it.
Simples - no fooking measurements needed, just yer lugs and the bit of grey matter in-between! :hairmetal:
Marco.
'sound of real instruments ' blah blah. Can't remember the last time I heard an unamplified band and I never go to classical concerts. Does that mean I'm not 'qualified' to judge if something is right or not? It is a mistake to think we have a choice as to whether we like a thing or not. If a system is right you will just know it. That is why with a good system you can get a civilian who pretty much never listens to music as a deliberate act commenting on it. They don't have any benchmarks to go by and they are not interested but they hear the system and totally unprompted will make a positive comment on the sound.
You go for a meal and order a steak, it arrives and you are eating it, do you decide if you like it or not? No. Either it's good or it isn't, you can't choose, it's goodness is independent of and immune to your reasoning powers.
This is why I have always maintained that if you listen to a system and find yourself thinking 'hmm, do I like what this is doing or not?' then the answer is you don't. Because the quality is not there and your body/brain knows this independently. All your reasoning can do is to attempt to convince your body/brain that it is wrong and that is ultimately impossible even though you may soldier on for a while with the same set up because 'it should be good'
So it is not a case of getting bogged down in different presentations, you like big Tannoys, you like ESL etc, that is superficial and pointless if the quality is not there to begin with. The scale is about rating quality, not presentation.
Gordon Steadman
30-12-2014, 10:49
You go for a meal and order a steak, it arrives and you are eating it, do you decide if you like it or not? No. Either it's good or it isn't, you can't choose, it's goodness is independent of and immune to your reasoning powers.
Not the best case you could have chosen:) I like mine red and raw and juicy. A mate of mine in the UK would throw up if he had to admit that cows have blood. Overcooked and dry is what he likes. That's why he washes it down with red poison (ketchup):spew:
I have a pal like that, too, although he doesn't resort to ketchup. But he still buys the best cut of fillet in order to ruin it....
'sound of real instruments ' blah blah. Can't remember the last time I heard an unamplified band and I never go to classical concerts. Does that mean I'm not 'qualified' to judge if something is right or not? It is a mistake to think we have a choice as to whether we like a thing or not. If a system is right you will just know it.
Of course you’re qualified. In that respect, you just use whatever relevant benchmark you’ve got to judge what you’re hearing. The last bit is spot on: it’s called gut instinct, and those in audio who ‘live by measurements’ often shun this in-built (surprisingly accurate) and very important part of our human senses.
'Gut instincts’ have been responsible for about 70% of my system choices (and near enough all of them have worked out superbly)! :)
That is why with a good system you can get a civilian who pretty much never listens to music as a deliberate act commenting on it. They don't have any benchmarks to go by and they are not interested but they hear the system and totally unprompted will make a positive comment on the sound.
Yes, that can often be useful, but not necessarily for ascertaining how faithfully our systems reproduces the sound of real instruments and voices. What it’s useful for is simply obtaining an honest and unbiased opinion, minus any of the preconceptions/‘badge reputations’, etc, which as audio enthusiasts, may negatively influence our judgement.
You go for a meal and order a steak, it arrives and you are eating it, do you decide if you like it or not? No. Either it's good or it isn't, you can't choose, it's goodness is independent of and immune to your reasoning powers.
Not sure where you’re going with that one…
I’d decide if I liked the steak or not as soon as I took the first bite, and would make a judgement call then as to whether or not I wanted to eat it (and how it compared in terms of the quality of steak I’m used to eating) - and if I didn’t like it, I’d send it back to the kitchen and have it cooked more to my liking or replaced with something else.
I’d therefore be using my available benchmark (from a lifetime’s experience of eating steaks) to judge how good/closest to the taste of real cow that steak was - and that’s the type of process I use to judge the sound quality of a hi-fi system, by using my available benchmark of listening to real instruments and voices.
So it is not a case of getting bogged down in different presentations, you like big Tannoys, you like ESL etc, that is superficial and pointless if the quality is not there to begin with. The scale is about rating quality, not presentation.
But surely “quality” is just as subjective as “presentation”? For me, as I’ve said before, it all boils down to your available benchmark in the area concerned, as to how one would judge “quality”.
Marco.
There's a book called 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' which deals with the question of Quality and what it is. It's a long book and it's a long time since I read it but the upshot is we all know quality when we see it, hear it, taste it etc but despite that we find it almost impossible to define in words. So presentation can be to taste but quality cannot - something either has quality or it lacks it and that is a universal attribute, not one of personal taste. Everyone will agree when something has quality and everyone will agree that it is lacking. And of course there will be degrees of quality from zero percent up to 100. So although you and I, for example, would not go for ESL as our first choice of speaker we can still appreciate the quality of a system that uses ESL speakers. Likewise sticking your Tannoys on the end of a system that lacks quality will not give it quality. If it wasn't there with £60 Wharfedales it won't be there with the 5 grand Tannoy, either.
The question is 'can we define quality in audio?' That is sort of what I was attempting to do by suggesting a rating scale (and with the definitions I picked for each score).
Light Dependant Resistor
30-12-2014, 13:48
Yes Zen and the Art of motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig is a very good read, as well as looking at the essence of quality , it looks carefully at two different approaches to life, one by people who are unconcerned with knowing about detail enjoying that other people make decisions for them, and on the side people who are obsessed by detail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance
The landscape is two groups of people riding their motorcycles across America one pair take their motorcycle to the repair shop if something happens to go wrong, whereas the other pair particularly one person continually observes performance and nuances that might cause failure and regularly fashions objects to maintain the ability to continue to ride.
I’d have to read the book concerned and see exactly where it was going with the topic of ‘quality’, but I still think it’s a definition that is largely subjective. Your statement of: ‘we all know quality when we see it’ is undoubtedly true, but the level of that quality is determined by that person’s benchmark for such, i.e. in that respect, what he or she is 'used to’.
For example, returning to your steak analogy, ‘quality’, for you, may be represented by whatever is served in your average steak house, whereas for me, with a different benchmark, in that respect, it could be the finest organic Welsh Black beef, matured for 28 days, from an award-winning local farm. Both examples, to us, are ‘quality’, but the intrinsic (actual) quality of both pieces of meat is rather different.
Similarly, when listening to a hi-fi system together, you could say to me: ‘Wow, listen to how real that guitar sounds! This is a quality system’, and I could reply: ‘It’s ok, but not that close to how a real guitar sounds, based on what I’m used to hearing.’
I could then proceed to demonstrate my point by playing you the same recording on another system, which I felt was of greater ‘quality’, and so reproduced the guitar more realistically, and you would then either agree or disagree with me. That’s simply because, ultimately one’s assessment of ‘quality’ is subjective (based on one’s benchmark for such) - and so cannot reliably be verified by any predetermined scale.
Marco.
awkwardbydesign
30-12-2014, 14:08
You go for a meal and order a steak, it arrives and you are eating it, do you decide if you like it or not? No. Either it's good or it isn't, you can't choose, it's goodness is independent of and immune to your reasoning powers.
Sorry? When I ate meat I liked my steaks really rare. Well cooked wasn't good. So I chose which was good. Your analogies are getting rather bizarre, and make no sense!
I apologize unreservedly for my bizarre analogies. :)
awkwardbydesign
30-12-2014, 14:57
I apologize unreservedly for my bizarre analogies. :)
You are forgiven. Please accept this kitten. In fact, I think I'll join you.
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/16200000/Kitten-pic-cute-kittens-16292232-640-473.jpg
awkwardbydesign
30-12-2014, 15:00
Ooh, I just found my avatar kitten without a hat. Google images at it's finest.
http://s.picsfab.com/static/contents/images/c/a/3/28b84238cac5367d2613ea087ddc5.jpg
I apologize unreservedly for my bizarre analogies. :)
What - are you giving up already? That’s rather unlike you! Surely the debate is good for another 45 pages yet? :D
Marco.
awkwardbydesign
30-12-2014, 16:18
Picture didn't work first time. Try again.
You are forgiven. Please accept this kitten. In fact, I think I'll join you.
http://do420.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/531028_403885229685169_1511095031_n.jpg
That's better.
That's weird. Sometimes it shows and sometimes it doesn't. Very random.
It’s the kittens putting a spell on you ;)
Marco.
awkwardbydesign
30-12-2014, 17:20
It’s the kittens putting a spell on you ;)
Marco.
Well, yes. That'll be me then.
http://www.funchilly.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Funny-magician-Cat-300x300.jpg
Is it me, or has that kitten got a stiffy?
Marco.
awkwardbydesign
30-12-2014, 18:37
Is it me, or has that kitten got a stiffy?
Marco.
Don't you even know if you have a stiffy? :eek:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.