View Full Version : Does the very best hi-fi get ignored? Discuss.
Arkless Electronics
22-07-2015, 10:39
Lets examine what hi fi is supposed to be about i.e. the most life like reproduction possible with nothing added and nothing taken away from the original.
How many items of hi fi equipment I wonder are passed by for doing exactly that??! If equipment has an unnaturally warm sound, or slightly excess bass giving impressive "slam", or excess brightness giving an "airy" effect, is it not often these items which are chosen, for sounding "better than real life" than the truly best equipment which gets closest to reality, warts 'n all??? I suspect that this is the case. It's probable that the best pieces of hi fi equipment ever made are regarded as average or also-rans for the sin of not sounding artificially impressive! I wonder what others think about this?
I'm guessing many will say they don't care how accurate it is so long as they like it. If so then why not go the whole hog and add tone controls, graphic equaliser, digital reverb etc.... What is it we actually want from hi fi?
Wakefield Turntables
22-07-2015, 10:44
Good point but most systems are made to an individuals listening tastes so it would be impossible to determine "the best" pieces of hifi as most sit within system based around several other pieces of hifi.
I guess it depends on the persons perception of reality and if they want to listen to reality in their spare time. A bit like telly really. Some like to watch real world documentaries and others prefer a film makers reality like Eastenders etc or Batman.
There is also the big question of what was reality for the singer and editor at time of making the music. They may have used equipment that produced all the stuff you are disparaging. In my view, folk should just use what they like that fits into their budget and style of music they prefer. ...
Good Point Jez but I suspect the reality is a little more complex. For example, one can have very accurate source and amplification these days, as good, theoretically, as it gets. Stick the "wrong" pair of speakers on the end of that or listen in a bare untreated room with lots of reflection and you'll never hear music as it was intended. Conversely, you may have found your speaker/room nirvana but have a hideously high distortion SET amp or something driving a signal from a knackered cartridge. The results wont be pretty.
In theory, all that is needed for good, accurate sound reproduction is a system capable of 32Hz to say 12KHz before roll off or peakiness but in that critical band, enjoy low distortion, good smooth response and equal power response. You may consider that a very easy target to hit, an indeed with a little shopping around, it can be. I have yet to hear a single domestic system that pulls that off well though, and have listened to some quite expensive systems. Why? Because, as you say, most people like to "tune" a system to their musical and hearing preferences. It's ok to say "we tune for our hearing" but what we think we mean is purely frequency response (ie lifted or dropped) when what is often the case is obvious higher distortion which can come from clipping amps or even the recorded music itself.
We then have the recordings. The holy grail of analogue recording was to achieve at least a 50dB dynamic range for LP to avoid compression and music sounding "unreal" . Vinyl came along with its low surface noise (-30dB possible) and transformed analogue disc playback from shellac for example, but then the recording engineers had to translate say a 95dB dynamic performance to 50, which meant lobbing off the peaks or compression. Too much compression robs atmosphere, detail etc and makes the music sound artificially rendered and looud so the best kit in the world can never retrieve this.
Along came digital and Red Book standards were born with a theoretical 90dB dynamic range and over -60dB noise floor...fantastic! Except that remastering of famous recordings were all from analogue masters so you never got more than high speed tape was capable of. Then DDD recordings happened and still we didn't get out 90dB because Loudness wars and radio stations competing for space saw fit to play only those toons which could be banged out loud into our bonces and the habit stuck with producers looking to make a quick buck.
Thankfully now, things are changing and its largely thanks to the artists themselves who are more insistent on dynamic range (Neil Young for example), plus there are plenty of new classical recordings since the advent of digital instead of poorly remastered originals.
The irony of all of this is that just as CD sales are dying a death, CD is only now just coming to the fore as the best physical media with the right recordings of course. It is likely to remain a niche commodity for many years because modern recording technique will save its bacon as downloads are not yet the future for all collectors, just as LP will remain.
Get over all that lot and it's any wonder some people end up on a kit merry-go-round swapping out what might be perfectly capable kit.
For myself, I have chosen carefully, and have also designed and built carefully, and whilst I do not have full frequency (I miss the bottom half octave), I know for a fact that what I do have performs with very low distortion from 36Hz to 12KHz bandwidth, and with a lovely smooth and even power response in room. That makes listening a pleasure.
Oldpinkman
22-07-2015, 11:15
Yes. Good question. But one mans neutral...
Of course, for some equipment you can look at measurements to determine tonally neutral, but for systems as a whole? Speakers interacting with rooms?
Until very recently when I mixed some subwoofer in with the ESL63's I have been a strictly no tone controls "exact copy" believer, but I am aware that elements of my system are "light" or "heavy" - for example the Dynavector cartridge, by comparison with others I have used, has a very full rich extended bass, which balances a "lean dry" FXR arm
But, if the question is do you choose to colour or choose to get "accurate" - I at least think I try for accurate (within a range - I know I miss true real deep bass with those speakers)
The new Benchmark AHB2 has been an eye-opener in that regard - not so much for tonal neutrality, as for the benefit (apparently) of excellent measurements. Far from being sterile or unmusical, it is just SOOO natural and "real" - in a very understated and yet in an exciting way.
Would your question work as "does it need to measure well to be accurate"? or
Are "tuned by ear" designs just that - tuned to please, rather than designed for neutrality?
there are two types of enthusiast I think:
1) those who want a window on the recording
2) Those who want a pleasing sounding stereo system
Whilst strictly speaking only 1) is actually the pursuit of high-fidelity, those in the second camp tend to get a bit shirty if you tell them what they are pursuing is not strictly 'hi-fi'.
Arkless Electronics
22-07-2015, 11:16
Any one ever listened to a live un-amplified powerful soprano female voice and thought "if this was my hi fi I'd say this was a bit of a strident recording" ? But it's reality!
Any one ever listened to a live un-amplified powerful soprano female voice and thought "if this was my hi fi I'd say this was a bit of a strident recording" ? But it's reality!
Yes.
Lets examine what hi fi is supposed to be about i.e. the most life like reproduction possible with nothing added and nothing taken away from the original.
How many items of hi fi equipment I wonder are passed by for doing exactly that??! If equipment has an unnaturally warm sound, or slightly excess bass giving impressive "slam", or excess brightness giving an "airy" effect, is it not often these items which are chosen, for sounding "better than real life" than the truly best equipment which gets closest to reality, warts 'n all??? I suspect that this is the case. It's probable that the best pieces of hi fi equipment ever made are regarded as average or also-rans for the sin of not sounding artificially impressive! I wonder what others think about this?
I'm guessing many will say they don't care how accurate it is so long as they like it. If so then why not go the whole hog and add tone controls, graphic equaliser, digital reverb etc.... What is it we actually want from hi fi?
I agree with much of the above. Personally, I find that I prefer the presentation of vintage hifi to modern gear. I think the current emphasis on ever more detail sometimes comes at the expense of musicality for want of a better word. That said, the one thing this hobby has taught me is that there are no absolutes. There are just different ways of building a good sounding system, all of which are equally valid.
Any one ever listened to a live un-amplified powerful soprano female voice and thought "if this was my hi fi I'd say this was a bit of a strident recording" ? But it's reality!
No I avoid such unpleasant noises
Most of the music I listen to is amplified and therefore variable in it's pleasurableness whatever the listening equipment.
I have to laugh at all this 'I just want to hear exactly what's on the recording' stuff. How does anyone know what's 'exactly what's on the recording'? Without that knowledge, you're only really guessing that what you hear through your system is 'accurate' or 'truthful'. In other words, it sounds like what you think it ought to sound like, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Gordon Steadman
22-07-2015, 11:42
Whilst it could said that hi-fi is only for reproducing reality...in actual fact it is nothing of the kind. It's for the enjoyment of music...or should be I judge. If you find the stridency of 'real' brass or god forgive (sorry Richard) the horror of warblin' wimmin too much to take, then tame them and enjoy the music. (I speak as someone with a horror of tone controls:lol:)
My only check is to ensure that the system makes guitars sound the same as the ones I make. As the frequency range of those is not that wide, who knows how accurate the rest is? Sounds good to me and I really do enjoy listening to music.
All the arguments about 'wide open' and truly this and that mean bugger all if the enjoyment is lacking. There is no one size fits all.
Arkless Electronics
22-07-2015, 11:45
If one regularly listens to live music or even plays instruments and jams with others then it is perfectly possible to have a damn good idea of what the real thing sounds like... if not exactly what one specific recording sounds like.
I have certainly heard plenty of hi fi systems that sound nothing like reality but that's the way the owner likes it....
Many years ago I had an Audionote (UK) SET amp in for repair. When the owner came to collect he asked about my own hi fi so I gave him a demo. "I used to work in a recording studio and that sounds very much like the sound we got in the control room, dynamic, clean and uncoloured..... no I don't like that at all" said he!!!
southall-1998
22-07-2015, 11:53
Very interesting, Jez. The chap likes is coloration!
S.
I agree with much of the above. Personally, I find that I prefer the presentation of vintage hifi to modern gear. I think the current emphasis on ever more detail sometimes comes at the expense of musicality for want of a better word. That said, the one thing this hobby has taught me is that there are no absolutes. There are just different ways of building a good sounding system, all of which are equally valid.
Completely agree Paul:thumbsup:
I have to laugh at all this 'I just want to hear exactly what's on the recording' stuff. How does anyone know what's 'exactly what's on the recording'? Without that knowledge, you're only really guessing that what you hear through your system is 'accurate' or 'truthful'. In other words, it sounds like what you think it ought to sound like, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'd argue that (probabaly a quite old and primitive part of ) our brain recognises the difference between a pleasing set of sound wave frequencies and the sound of a recorded instrument/voice in a live acoustic. The same way as most dogs and cats can distinguish between a dog barking on TV and a dog barking in the street outside. They will react to the real dog but not to the reproduced dog because the reproduction is not good enough to convince. It is a subconcious process: they don't need to think 'hmm is that a real dog or just on the telly?'
they are probably hearing frequencies that our primitive equipme!t cannot reproduce as well...
I have to laugh at all this 'I just want to hear exactly what's on the recording' stuff. How does anyone know what's 'exactly what's on the recording'? Without that knowledge, you're only really guessing that what you hear through your system is 'accurate' or 'truthful'. In other words, it sounds like what you think it ought to sound like, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Absolutely spot on and in a perfectly succinct nutshell - bravo !!!!
I'd argue that (probabaly a quite old and primitive part of ) our brain recognises the difference between a pleasing set of sound wave frequencies and the sound of a recorded instrument/voice in a live acoustic. The same way as most dogs and cats can distinguish between a dog barking on TV and a dog barking in the street outside. They will react to the real dog but not to the reproduced dog because the reproduction is not good enough to convince. It is a subconcious process: they don't need to think 'hmm is that a real dog or just on the telly?'
I disagree. Firstly, because our two cats used to get very excited at the sight of birds on a TV, to the extent of going round the back of the set to see where they were. Secondly, because we're not talking about the difference between real instruments in a live acoustic and a recording, but the sound of a recording that has been mixed, EQ'd and edited. How can you tell whether system A is more 'accurate' than system B in reproducing this artifice? You can measure to what extent the system adds distortion, but in most digital systems this will be minimal and the effect below the hearing threshold. The only way to be sure would be get the record producer to come round and have a listen, and his hearing's probably shot by now anyway.
My point is we are no different to the dog or the cat in that the primitive area of our brain is very good at distinguishing between real and reproduced. The closer your system gets to real, the better it will sound since the instruments on the recording do sound very pleasing to our ears, that is why they were invented.
A system which is very coloured will not even attempt this reality so what you have is a pleasing set of sound waves being generated by a machine. It won't sound like what it actually is - a recording of musical instruments being played, it will just be a pleasing sound. However the diference between the two is irrelevant to many enthusiasts, I think.
My point is we are no different to the dog or the cat in that the primitive area of our brain is very good at distinguishing between real and reproduced. The closer your system gets to real, the better it will sound since the instruments on the recording do sound very pleasing to our ears, that is why they were invented.
A system which is very coloured will not even attempt this reality so what you have is a pleasing set of sound waves being generated by a machine. It won't sound like what it actually is - a recording of musical instruments being played, it will just be a pleasing sound. However the diference between the two is irrelevant to many enthusiasts, I think.
That sounds self-contradictory. More accurate = more pleasing because that's what our ears are designed for, versus less accurate = pleasing anyway. How can something inaccurate sound pleasing if our ears are 'designed' to appreciate accuracy?
I disagree. Firstly, because our two cats used to get very excited at the sight of birds on a TV, to the extent of going round the back of the set to see where they were. Secondly, because we're not talking about the difference between real instruments in a live acoustic and a recording, but the sound of a recording that has been mixed, EQ'd and edited. How can you tell whether system A is more 'accurate' than system B in reproducing this artifice? You can measure to what extent the system adds distortion, but in most digital systems this will be minimal and the effect below the hearing threshold. The only way to be sure would be get the record producer to come round and have a listen, and his hearing's probably shot by now anyway.
thats what i said:eyebrows:
Gordon Steadman
22-07-2015, 12:35
That sounds self-contradictory. More accurate = more pleasing because that's what our ears are designed for, versus less accurate = pleasing anyway. How can something inaccurate sound pleasing if our ears are 'designed' to appreciate accuracy?
If I found the original and accurate difficult to listen to but enjoyed a modified version, then what should I do? Not listen to it because it was not the intention of the producers of said noise or sit and enjoy it for what I can get out of it?
I like hi-fi because it gives me music I enjoy but also because I've been into industrial deign all my life and love the boys toys and visual aspect as well. Looking at old Quad gear on the shelf is a visual delight and pleasure. I have some old facias mounted in a frame as art on the wall. Art it is. I'm collecting stuff to look at as well as listen to now, especially the bits I couldn't afford when they were new.
That sounds self-contradictory. More accurate = more pleasing because that's what our ears are designed for, versus less accurate = pleasing anyway. How can something inaccurate sound pleasing if our ears are 'designed' to appreciate accuracy?
Our ears are not designed to appreciate 'accuracy' But our brain is designed to distinguish real sounds from fake sounds. With a recording the best you can ever do is get it to sound like a recording of the real thing. Anything in the reproduction process that hinders that is a 'colouration'.
Take a system designed to reproduce the recording as closely as possible and compare that to a system designed only to sound pleasing to the ear and compare the two back to back; you will soon realise what I am trying to say. You might prefer the coloured system, many do, but personally I find the less coloured system involves me more because it sounds instinctively 'right' and 'real'.
Oldpinkman
22-07-2015, 13:16
Any one ever listened to a live un-amplified powerful soprano female voice and thought "if this was my hi fi I'd say this was a bit of a strident recording" ? But it's reality!
Since I live and sleep with a soprano with a powerful voice...
Er - no actually. It needs a big enough room to let it go full welly, or it might sound painfully loud, and that register is not everyones favourite - but I wouldn't ever call it strident. (I'd get my lights punched out if I did).
Oldpinkman
22-07-2015, 13:20
I have to laugh at all this 'I just want to hear exactly what's on the recording' stuff. How does anyone know what's 'exactly what's on the recording'? Without that knowledge, you're only really guessing that what you hear through your system is 'accurate' or 'truthful'. In other words, it sounds like what you think it ought to sound like, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I listen to the band live, at the recording studio, and get the band round to listen to the music at home. (I'm thinking particularly of Dave Migden - both James and Joe have heard "Animal and man" on my system (and were there for mastering all the tracks, whereas I only heard a couple)
But I know what a live cello or live chamber orchestra sound like and can compare that to what my system produces. Most "voiced" HiFi sounds obviously artificial with good natural classical recordings.
Arkless Electronics
22-07-2015, 13:36
Since I live and sleep with a soprano with a powerful voice...
Er - no actually. It needs a big enough room to let it go full welly, or it might sound painfully loud, and that register is not everyones favourite - but I wouldn't ever call it strident. (I'd get my lights punched out if I did).
I've heard it sound strident... and I didn't mean just classical soprano but anything of that ilk.... unaccompanied folk music sometimes etc. Obviously room acoustics and distance from source will have a huge effect but I have heard live unamplified music, on rare occasions, which I've thought to myself "I know this is live and as real as it gets but if I was listening to a hi fi that sounded exactly the same as what I'm hearing now I would have given slight criticism for "stridency", "hardness" and "a bit in yer face"". What I'm getting at is that sometimes that actually is what it really sounds like.
Great discussion, feel like im learning so much reading these forums.
I have a few qustions, sorry if these are really obvious.
Just had a question, on nutrality, are some of the higher end systems based on components or similar circits used in high end mixing desks, SSL etc? Just wondering if thats what people are chasing if there is crossover between the two fields.
also
Is this why the BBC ( lS1 was it?) monitors are mentioned alot here? I have never heard a pair, but presumably if they were desinged as monitor they are fairly flat uncoloured?
Also
Does anyone use headphones like the Bayer Dt100 for music listening and not just mixing? again for the flat respones.
And I supose the ultimate quetion is if you are chasing nutrality can it be done on a budget or is all all domestic range equipement tuned by design for "musicality" rather then nutrality?
I have had the devil of a job getting cheap headphones ( sub £40 ) that arent massively bass heavy.
Thanks again guys, Saber.
Ali Tait
22-07-2015, 13:46
I'd argue that (probabaly a quite old and primitive part of ) our brain recognises the difference between a pleasing set of sound wave frequencies and the sound of a recorded instrument/voice in a live acoustic. The same way as most dogs and cats can distinguish between a dog barking on TV and a dog barking in the street outside. They will react to the real dog but not to the reproduced dog because the reproduction is not good enough to convince. It is a subconcious process: they don't need to think 'hmm is that a real dog or just on the telly?'
I always play the telly through the system. My dog reacts the same way to barking whether it's coming from outside or from the telly.
Regarding the original question - 'does the best hi-fi get ignored?' I would say that, for the most part, no - it does not get ignored. That doesn't mean that some pretty average stuff doesn't gain more praise than it deserves though.
I always play the telly through the system. My dog reacts the same way to barking whether it's coming from outside or from the telly.
Okay so some dogs (and cats, evidently) struggle with this. It doesn't really effect my analogy though, does it?
Imagine a hierarchy of realism:
1) hearing a piano played in the room with you
2) playing back a recording of the same performance on a hi-fi system.
The better the system (and I am using better in an objective sense) the more that recording of that piano sounds like a recording of the event that you heard.
It is never going to fool you into thinking 'there is a piano in the room with you' but the fidelity of the recording, its realism, is what will hold your interest. Indeed the fact that you know it is a recording yet sounds so real is what captivates you.
Now lets degrade the replay system so that subtle spacial clues in the soundstage are masked, the dynamics are reduced, transients are softened, etc etc. it may still sound very pleasant indeed but it is now reduced to two loudspeakers moving air, it is no longer a recording of a piano you are listening to it is just a stereo system making a piano-like sound.
never really liked live music sound wise ..... its rarely anywhere as good a studio recording. atmosphere is a different matter of course..the feeling of being there cannot be beat but i prefer a good analogue recording...im sure im in a minority of one here though:eek:
Gordon Steadman
22-07-2015, 16:12
never really liked live music sound wise ..... its rarely anywhere as good a studio recording. atmosphere is a different matter of course..the feeling of being there cannot be beat but i prefer a good analogue recording...im sure im in a minority of one here though:eek:
Oh no you are not. Most live gigs I've been to over the years have sounded crap. Un-amplified in small venues not too bad sometimes but noise - sorry....atmosphere....usually intrudes. Classical concerts, provided no amplifier reinforcement has been used, presumably sound as they should but so much depends on venue.
I remember seeing Bream and Williams live at Fairfield Halls years ago and, in spite of the fact that they both had extremely good guitars and the hall had good acoustics, some twit has mikes and bloody great speakers set up. Sounded like no guitars I had ever heard before.
Just about everywhere, you are reliant on the sound engineer just the same as with a recording. The main advantage is that you can usually have a pint and pull the wimmin - if you are so inclined.
Hi Jez,
I'm guessing many will say they don't care how accurate it is so long as they like it. If so then why not go the whole hog and add tone controls, graphic equaliser, digital reverb etc.... What is it we actually want from hi fi?
For my system to reproduce, as faithfully as possible (based on my interpretation of such), the information contained on music recordings. It's as simple as that, which is one of the reasons I don't use any of the items you mention above, as in my experience they detract from that.
That answers your question, in terms of what I want from "hi fi": it's simply a tool to reproduce my favourite recorded music.
However, as has been correctly pointed out, none of us knows *for sure* exactly how good our systems are at performing the above task (simply because none of us knows exactly what the sound was like that left the studio, which the recordings we're listening to have hopefully captured as accurately as possible).
Therefore, we're left simply with our individual perceptions of such [in terms of the success of our systems at fulfilling that task], which are influenced by a number of factors, not least of which is our intrinsic knowledge (based on relevant experience and our exposure to live music, minus amplification) of how voices and instruments *actually* sound in real life.
It is therefore *that* which I use to judge the success of my system at faithfully reproducing what's on recordings, or more importantly creating a sound that I consider as closely as possible replicates that of real instruments and voices, using my ears as the arbiter, not measurement apparatus. As an end user of hi-fi equipment, I leave the latter up to the equipment designers! ;)
In terms of my system creating a sound that's enjoyable to listen to, of course that's important, but as Macca touched upon, my enjoyment of such is directly proportional to how closely it is able to mimic 'reality' (i.e. how real instruments and voices sound), as being a regular live music attendee (of all different genres), I've yet to find the sound of any real instrument 'objectionable', no matter how dynamic that sound is - even when being up close to the string or wind section of an orchestra in full flow! :eek:
Therefore, whilst I appreciate that no hi-fi system in the world can get really close to creating that effect, I want mine to do it as closely as possible, which means no deliberate tailoring of its sonic signature to be 'easy on the ear', as the sound of real instruments is very rarely like that. So, if a recording is 'raw', or sonically poor, then that's exactly how I want it reproduced through my hi-fi system, as only then, when it's presented with a truly wide-open audiophile recording, with realistic dynamic range, will I be able to enjoy it in all its glory!! :cool:
Marco.
anthonyTD
22-07-2015, 17:11
Interesting thread Jez,
when ever we listen to recorded music, whether that be on tape, record, or Digital replay, we are listening to someone else’s interpretation of what is right, i.e.; the recording engineer, so' knowing how wildly engineers hearing, and ideas as to what is right or wrong can vary, its no wonder most of us end up with a system that produces music in a way that connects with us personally, and may not be to everyone's taste, and probably far from the sound that originally entered the sound engineers head on the day! :doh:
For me personally, I do try to get certain elements of recordings to sound as right to me as possible, i.e.' vocals, especially female vocals, I am not a deep bass freak, nor do I feel the need to have cymbals rip my head off, it is very hard for someone starting out in this hobby to decide on how best to put a system together, however, I would emphasise on the first few lines above, forget about trying to reproduce recorded music as faithfully to the real thing because the real thing is only an interpretation of the engineer on the day, and when you think of all the equipment the original signal would have gone through before it is finally recorded, well...
There are of course certain priorities in equipment that you have to adhere to to have any real chance of getting anywhere near a reasonable interpretation of what has been recorded, i.e.; low noise, wide frequency bandwidth, etc, etc, but at the end of the day, its up to the individual to put a system together, where when music is played, it connects with one on a physical, and emotional level.:)
A...
Arkless Electronics
22-07-2015, 17:41
I kind of disagree with all the statements that "we don't know what it's supposed to sound like as it's just the recording engineers interpretation". Yes for any one album that is of course true, and there will be many albums in our collections that sound obviously wrong and far more coloured than we know our systems are capable of. If listening to live unamplified music is the criterion against which we judge it though, we can pick out a few albums which sound as close to that standard as our ears tell us. If these all sound close to real then the differences between them can be analysed/extrapolated out by our ear/brain combination to find an aggregate for how close a particular system gets to reality.... Maybe....
walpurgis
22-07-2015, 18:23
there are two types of enthusiast I think:
1) those who want a window on the recording
2) Those who want a pleasing sounding stereo system
Whilst strictly speaking only 1) is actually the pursuit of high-fidelity, those in the second camp tend to get a bit shirty if you tell them what they are pursuing is not strictly 'hi-fi'.
In my opinion my system meets both requirements.
walpurgis
22-07-2015, 18:24
never really liked live music sound wise ..... its rarely anywhere as good a studio recording. atmosphere is a different matter of course..the feeling of being there cannot be beat but i prefer a good analogue recording...im sure im in a minority of one here though:eek:
I actually agree. Most live performance recordings are a bit rough.
I must admit I sometimes wonder if I actually need a 'hi-fi' system. As my system has improved I find I am fighting harder and harder to avoid playing any old tosh (not Peter) just because, supposedly, it will sound good, it's well recorded or brilliantly produced. I find myself tempted to play music I don't even like because it can be downloaded at 2400/192000 or whatever. I even tried Yello, crikey, and Steely Dan,noo, but stopped short at Dire Straits because I read somewhere they would 'test my system'. I wonder what my musical heroes listen to their music on. I feel a bit guilty when I imagine what record player Mark E Smith uses at home and I don't know if I would laugh or cry if Unknown Pleasures came out remastered and souped up, no doubt someone will now inform me it has been. I also wonder how much the producers of music help us. Presumably all kinds of listening equipment is used in studios, from headphones to near field monitors and huge monitors. How do they decide what sound to release? Do the take into account the average living room hi-fi? This hobby sucks you in, but I think I may have been happier when I didn't care about the 'sound' just the music, dancing around my teenage bedroom listening on a Hitachi music centre.
However, as has been correctly pointed out, none of us knows *for sure* exactly how good our systems are at performing the above task (simply because none of us knows exactly what the sound was like that left the studio, which the recordings we're listening to have hopefully captured as accurately as possible).
Hmmm... in my case where I record my acoustic and play it back via the main system, I'm pretty clued as to how the original sounds.
Play it back via my system and I think it sounds bloody amazing - much better than the original. Why? Because it acts as a magnifying lens. I can play back at far higher levels than the acoustic can manage. Consequently, I can hear far more detail than I ever can in reality.
Something else is notable too. Plug the guitar into the hi-fi using a suitable interface and it sounds rubbish. Hopeless. It needs a genuinely shit amp to make it sound great - like an all valve guitar amp.
anthonyTD
22-07-2015, 18:56
I am with you on this bit!
If listening to live unamplified music is the criterion against which we judge it though, we can pick out a few albums which sound as close to that standard as our ears tell us. If these all sound close to real then the differences between them can be analysed/extrapolated out by our ear/brain combination to find an aggregate for how close a particular system gets to reality.... Maybe....
Something else is notable too. Plug the guitar into the hi-fi using a suitable interface and it sounds rubbish. Hopeless. It needs a genuinely shit amp to make it sound great - like an all valve guitar amp.
That's because the guitar amplifier is part of the instrument. The contribution of the "shit amp" is what makes it sound the way it does.
The Kinks's Dave Davis got the distinctive sound by deliberately, in a fit of pique, slashing the speaker cone of his guitar amplifer with a razor blade - and having done so, never looked back!
Lets examine what hi fi is supposed to be about i.e. the most life like reproduction possible with nothing added and nothing taken away from the original.
How many items of hi fi equipment I wonder are passed by for doing exactly that??! If equipment has an unnaturally warm sound, or slightly excess bass giving impressive "slam", or excess brightness giving an "airy" effect, is it not often these items which are chosen, for sounding "better than real life" than the truly best equipment which gets closest to reality, warts 'n all??? I suspect that this is the case. It's probable that the best pieces of hi fi equipment ever made are regarded as average or also-rans for the sin of not sounding artificially impressive! I wonder what others think about this?
I'm guessing many will say they don't care how accurate it is so long as they like it. If so then why not go the whole hog and add tone controls, graphic equaliser, digital reverb etc.... What is it we actually want from hi fi?
I've had a similar discussion to this with my brother in law who is an audio designer in the games industry and has a home studio full of pro gear. He really doesn't get why I'm into hifi at all when pro gear gives more faithful reproduction and is often better value. Thinking about this all I could reply was that the pro gear lacked musical enjoyment for me.
Some of the most accurate systems just leave me a bit cold. Not that I want something which sounds coloured or unfaithful to the music but the difference between the pro gear and hifi can be simply described as 'joy'.
One has it the other doesn't.
....The contribution of the "shit amp" is what makes it sound the way it does.
Always tickled by the irony of wanting to hear a 'realistic' reproduction of the Hendrix version of "Star Spangled Banner' :lol:
Okay so some dogs (and cats, evidently) struggle with this. It doesn't really effect my analogy though,
Well, unfortunately yes it does, in fact it pretty much nullifies it as a valid analogy. However, that doesn't necessarily mean you don't have a valid point, just that the accompanying analogy may not be a good one.
having worked in studio's as a technician and also a spell mixing front of house for bands, my interest in hi-fi came from wondering just exactly how much detail was being captured and how to get it back out again. Whilst gaining experience recording I quickly discovered that what you captured was the microphones interpretation of the sound in the room and that they were all different, neumann condensers eventually became my goto mics as they were in general the best at making the recording sound real to me whatever the recording process. The clients though, often didn't like what they heard and tweaked the eq so it sounded like they thought it should. ho-hum.
these days listening is just for fun but I only see an improvement in my system if I hear what I think are sounds being reproduced more accurately. that accuracy though, is most likely still down to my perception and my liking for certain microphones, but the goal is that elusive 'real' sound. I also use guitars and voices I know well as a reference.
as much as I liked the idea of an exotic system I've ended up with the amps and monitors you would likely find in a recording studio.
music, I enjoy on most systems even the one in the car with all the wind and tyre noise.
walpurgis
22-07-2015, 23:05
The obvious point about this 'debate', is that nobody can tell you what "the very best hi-fi" is.
Certainly, claims can be made and daft prices can be quoted, but in the overall scheme of things, that will mean little.
The obvious point about this 'debate', is that nobody can tell you what "the very best hi-fi" is.
Certainly, claims can be made and daft prices can be quoted, but in the overall scheme of things, that will mean little.
well obviously its what I've got:eek::lol: ...I guess many will think similar of theirs but not say it
never really liked live music sound wise ..... its rarely anywhere as good a studio recording. atmosphere is a different matter of course..the feeling of being there cannot be beat but i prefer a good analogue recording...im sure im in a minority of one here though:eek:
You clearly have never seen The Lounge Lizards play at The Queen Elizabeth Hall, or John Zorn or Max Roach & Cecil Taylor at The Barbican, or Diamanda Galas or David Byrne at the Royal Festival Hall, or The Cramps. Or Irakere at Ronnie Scott's....
Oh man.
When I bought my speakers from Billy Vee I asked if I could listen to their £80K Linn set-up. It felt like a good seat in a good hall with a good sound man on the desk.
I sat at Dizzy Gillespie's feet at a gig in New York in 1989. I could not speak for fifteen minutes after the concert.
edit: I realise this all makes me sound like a bit of a ****, but after a few glenlivets and a proper session of LPs this evening your post got me thinking back to some of the wonderful gigs I have been at...
Arkless Electronics
23-07-2015, 00:45
The obvious point about this 'debate', is that nobody can tell you what "the very best hi-fi" is.
Certainly, claims can be made and daft prices can be quoted, but in the overall scheme of things, that will mean little.
I would say the best was whichever sounded the most similar to real live unamplified music on an A/B comparison. That may not be what someone chooses to use at home though..... that's the reasoning behind the debate.
I've seen and heard this done once at the old Harrogate show by B&W when they got an employee called George Hooley to play his clarinet along with a recording of him playing it and stopped either the recording or George at various times. I was one of only about 4 people in a room of maybe 30 who put up their hand to say they could tell which was which...
I would say the best was whichever sounded the most similar to real live unamplified music on an A/B comparison. That may not be what someone chooses to use at home though..... that's the reasoning behind the debate.
I've seen and heard this done once at the old Harrogate show by B&W when they got an employee called George Hooley to play his clarinet along with a recording of him playing it and stopped either the recording or George at various times. I was one of only about 4 people in a room of maybe 30 who put up their hand to say they could tell which was which...
I have heard similar at a Quad demonstration evening. The difference between the live performance and the recording was quite obvious to my ears.
Lets examine what hi fi is supposed to be about i.e. the most life like reproduction possible with nothing added and nothing taken away from the original.
Absolutely.
For the individual, the best High Fidelity equipment is the one, one pay for.
That's because the guitar amplifier is part of the instrument. The contribution of the "shit amp" is what makes it sound the way it does.
In general yes, but two contra examples, the guitar solos in Pink Floyds ANBITWp2 and ZZ Top's blue jean blues are Les Paul and Strat respectively directly into the desk.
Just saying.
Forget the studio, forget the mics, forget whether the guitar was DI or amped up - with hi-fi the starting point is the finished recording. Some people are missing this point quite spectacularly.
Forget the studio, forget the mics, forget whether the guitar was DI or amped up - with hi-fi the starting point is the finished recording. Some people are missing this point quite spectacularly.
Possibly because you keep saying that a better system will make the music sound more like it was made with 'real instruments', and introduced the supporting analogy of real phone vs phone on the telly, or real dog barking vs dog barking on the telly. But mainly because we don't know, and have no way of knowing, what the finished recording is 'supposed' to sound like, so we have no benchmark against which we can make comparisons.
Gordon Steadman
23-07-2015, 08:30
Possibly because you keep saying that a better system will make the music sound more like it was made with 'real instruments', and introduced the supporting analogy of real phone vs phone on the telly, or real dog barking vs dog barking on the telly. But mainly because we don't know, and have no way of knowing, what the finished recording is 'supposed' to sound like, so we have no benchmark against which we can make comparisons.
Which is why I say that enjoying the music is more important than owning the most 'accurate' system. We all like to think our system is great of course but having it sit there looking great but not playing music every spare second is a waste of space.
Hmmm... in my case where I record my acoustic and play it back via the main system, I'm pretty clued as to how the original sounds.
Play it back via my system and I think it sounds bloody amazing - much better than the original. Why? Because it acts as a magnifying lens. I can play back at far higher levels than the acoustic can manage. Consequently, I can hear far more detail than I ever can in reality.
Something else is notable too. Plug the guitar into the hi-fi using a suitable interface and it sounds rubbish. Hopeless. It needs a genuinely shit amp to make it sound great - like an all valve guitar amp.
Hi Justin,
That's a slightly different thing, as you're deliberately creating an 'effect'. However, an acoustic guitar sounds as it sounds, played 'au naturel'. *That* is the REAL sound, whether or not you prefer the amplified one, reproduced by your hi-fi system.
However, as far as high-fidelity and recorded music goes, it's all about a system reproducing, as accurately as possible, the musical information contained on a given recording - nothing else, although of course, as others and I pointed out earlier, only if you were present in the studio at the time the recording was made will you be in a position to effectively judge whether the sound produced by your hi-fi system, in that respect, is accurate or not.
If not, all you can do is use your ears to judge what you think is 'right' or not. Simples :)
Marco.
Which is why I say that enjoying the music is more important than owning the most 'accurate' system.
Well, as I pointed out earlier, for me the musical enjoyment derives from my system (to my ears) getting the sound of real instruments and voices as right [read as convincing and believable] as possible, as nothing is more enjoyable than listening to a recording of a guitar, for example, played on my system, to my ears sounding like a REAL guitar.
Genuine accuracy, in that respect, if one can realistically get close to it, should not be a bad thing! ;)
That is what I strive for, not in creating a euphonic facsimile of such, in order for my system to make a 'pleasant noise'. In my opinion, as soon as you start deliberately tailoring the sound like that (via the use of tone controls or whatever), you can forget about any notions of your system achieving 'high-fidelity' [faithfulness to the source sound], and that's fair enough, if that's not what you're into :)
Marco.
Forget the studio, forget the mics, forget whether the guitar was DI or amped up - with hi-fi the starting point is the finished recording. Some people are missing this point quite spectacularly.
You are so right.
No one would dream of crayoning a moustache on the Mona Lisa.
So they should seek a neutral sounding system.
Words such as accurate, detail, resolution, musicality, enjoyable etc are difficult as everyone here will interpret them via their own experience. Any of those words could be seen anywhere between negative or positive depending on your point of view.
Taking the accurate, detail and resolution end of the spectrum:
- a system which does this in spades could be thought of a highly transparent, close to what we believe is the original
- it could instead be deeply effected by room acoustics/reflections or have speakers which are over bright and therefore there's little accuracy in reality and the resolution is "pseudo-detail"
For musicality and enjoyable:
- to some this will be taken as mellifluous, soporific, virtually worthless
- for others it'll be flowing, has soul and allows you to become lost in the magic of the music
Of course "enjoyable" could be on the accurate / detail side of the house if that's what the listener desires and achieves.
I've heard plenty of good and poor systems right across the spectrum. The poor ones will reinforce to most people why they don't like a particular type of sound, the good ones will be much more livable with but in the most of us need to choose what's right for us for the long-term. I can never make up my mind so I cycle between a few items of kit, mostly speakers. I also run one record deck and phono stage to suit mono and one for stereo, I don't find one setup is optimal for both. As my mood changes then what I want from a system and music changes but ultimately my the greatest variability is the quality of recordings. Yes a highly resolving system should allow you to focus on the music but it can also brutally reveal mastering shortcomings.
Part of the issue is that it's incredibly hard for anyone to listen to a piece on music in detail and in it's entirety. Either we listen at a superficial level taking in the feel of the piece or we focus on some aspects in detail and take in some of the rest of it as background support. I remember listening to a system that had atrocious bass, the person with me was extolling the virtues of the vocals but the bass was so awful I couldn't listen to it. My point is that two people listening to the same system and piece of music can validly go away with totally differing perspectives. Endless forum discussions will not change this.
Excellent post Clive! I think you have nailed it - and what ultimately is a pointless debate. :thumbsup:
We all hear differently and have a different agenda as to our listening requirements. Since no one system can come close to truly reproducing, in our listening room, the experience of a live concert or performance, a myriad of equipment combinations with different strengths and weakness result.
Indeed, Clive... Also, systems that some consider as 'accurate' [simply because they create a super-detailed and clinical sound] may actually be nothing of the sort, and simply exhibit another form of coloration equally as false as a system that sounds 'warm & cuddly', due to the components used superimposing their 'sonic signature' on music reproduced.
That's one of the reasons why I think people baulk at the sound of such 'accurate' systems, because in reality they're not as accurate as one is lead to believe, perhaps by how they measure.
As I've said, genuine musical accuracy shouldn't be unpleasant at all, as there is nothing more enjoyable than hearing a recording of a guitar sound like a real guitar, but the problem is that's not what some so-called 'accurate' systems do...
Marco.
We all hear differently and have a different agenda as to our listening requirements. Since no one system can come close to truly reproducing, in our listening room, the experience of a live concert or performance, a myriad of equipment combinations with different strengths and weakness result.
Yes, but the point is do you strive, within the limits of your capabilities, based on what you know, for your hi-fi system to create as realistic a facsimile as possible of the sound of real instruments and voices, or merely seek for it to produce a 'pleasing noise' (to your ears)?
*That* is the crux of the matter. The two notions/goals are quite different! ;)
Marco.
Yes, but the point is do you strive, within the limit of your capabilities, based on what you know, for your hi-fi system to create as realistic a facsimile as possible of the sound of real instruments and voices, or merely seek for it to produce a 'pleasing noise' (to your ears)?
*That* is the crux of the matter. The two notions/goals are quite different! ;)
Marco.
The former, though some listeners, who are not particularly interested in audio, hi-fi and all that, might say the latter. I have never had anyone complain about my system, but have had several who thought it better than their own.
The most oblique compliment (?) was from someone who built harpsichords as a hobby and had a decent system of his own (Rega deck and arm and Toshiba Aurex electronics. I forget the speakers, but they were compact stand-mounted jobbies). Upon listening to some harpsichord music on my Quads he said "well you're not offending my ears". I think it was meant as a compliment.... :scratch:
Gordon Steadman
23-07-2015, 10:22
Well, as I pointed out earlier, for me the musical enjoyment derives from my system (to my ears) getting the sound of real instruments and voices as right [read as convincing and believable] as possible, as nothing is more enjoyable than listening to a recording of a guitar, for example, played on my system, to my ears sounding like a REAL guitar.
Genuine accuracy, in that respect, if one can realistically get close to it, should not be a bad thing! ;)
That is what I strive for, not in creating a euphonic facsimile of such, in order for my system to make a 'pleasant noise'. In my opinion, as soon as you start deliberately tailoring the sound like that (via the use of tone controls or whatever), you can forget about any notions of your system achieving 'high-fidelity' [faithfulness to the source sound], and that's fair enough, if that's not what you're into :)
Marco.
Yes of course but in my scheme of things, the music comes before the hi-fi. If I enjoy something more, even if it ain't what was on the original recording, that's what I will play. We could keep going round and round (like a record) but we all have slightly different priorities.
Yes of course but in my scheme of things, the music comes before the hi-fi.
Yes, but surely the joy is derived from that music sounding as REAL (to your ears) as possible? I can't see why anyone would deliberately want something false... :scratch:
The function of a hi-fi system (if it's to live up to its name) is simply to reproduce the music that's on the recording, as faithfully as possible. Therefore, the one that does that the best should be the one that's the most enjoyable to listen to, providing that the recording quality is good.
For example, take two recordings of a solo violinist, one, for talking's sake, is superb and has been proven to sound 95% like the real thing, and the other, quite clearly in comparison, is false (e.g dynamically rolled off) - *YET* that is the sound you prefer, as to your ears, it is less 'strident'.
Which recording would you choose to listen to most often, or more importantly, 'voice' your system's sonic signature/musical presentation around?
Marco.
Reality is different for everyone though..What i hear as reality may well not be yours etc...doesnt make it any less valid
Gordon Steadman
23-07-2015, 10:43
Yes, but surely the joy is derived from that music sounding as REAL (to your ears) as possible? I can't see why anyone would deliberately want something false... :scratch:
For example, take two recordings of a solo violinist, one, for talking's sake, has been proven to sound 95% like the real thing, and the other, quite clearly, in comparison is false (e.g dynamically rounded off) - *YET* that is the sound you prefer.
Which recording would you choose to listen to most often, or more importantly, 'voice' your system's sonic signature/musical presentation around?
Marco.
The one that I preferred:) As I have said before, my system is 'voiced' to reproduce the sound of my guitars as accurately as I can get it so obviously accuracy is important but not the be all and end all.
I love Bat out of Hell. As it is recorded it is shit and probably scrapes layers off what is left of my ears. So I have re-recorded it, taming all the nasties and put it on a CD and the Mac. Should I listen to the original because it is how it 'should' sound?
We really don't disagree by much but when I say that the music is more important than the sound, that is what I mean. I can listen to my copy and not the original. What is accurate?
The former, though some listeners, who are not particularly interested in audio, hi-fi and all that, might say the latter.
Cool - same here. And yes, I agree. However, if you're in the latter camp, you don't really own a hi-fi system! ;)
Marco.
anthonyTD
23-07-2015, 10:54
Exactly!
Reality is different for everyone though..What i hear as reality may well not be yours etc...doesnt make it any less valid
The one that I preferred:) As I have said before, my system is 'voiced' to reproduce the sound of my guitars as accurately as I can get it so obviously accuracy is important but not the be all and end all.
I love Bat out of Hell. As it is recorded it is shit and probably scrapes layers off what is left of my ears. So I have re-recorded it, taming all the nasties and put it on a CD and the Mac. Should I listen to the original because it is how it 'should' sound?
We really don't disagree by much but when I say that the music is more important than the sound, that is what I mean. I can listen to my copy and not the original. What is accurate?
Ok, but now we're going round in circles, as you're missing the point. Read my previous post again for the definition of 'accurate'... One recording sounds like a real violin and one doesn't. I'd always choose to listen to the recording that sounded the most real, and use that as the benchmark for voicing my system's musical presentation around.
The Meat Loaf album you're referring is (sonically speaking) a bad recording. Therefore, if you were to voice your system to make that recording sound good (to your ears), how would your system then sound when playing recordings that don't need such 'modifying'?
Surely you can see my point? :)
Marco.
Reality is different for everyone though..What i hear as reality may well not be yours etc...doesnt make it any less valid
Exactly!
No less valid, for sure, as that's what you enjoy, but a recording of a guitar either sounds close to that of a real guitar or it doesn't! ;)
Marco.
No less valid, for sure, as that's what you enjoy, but a recording of a guitar either sounds close to that of a real guitar or not! ;)
Marco.
The reality is that if you get the guitar right then something like sax might not be right. It's a balancing act rather than simply right or wrong. Wind and string - there's got to be some humour in there. Even with guitar I bet there are those who will analyse the guitar into its constituent parts...
Holy moly! Let's sum up as follows what everyone is saying:
'I value accuracy. I like the sound my system makes. Therefore my system is accurate, otherwise I wouldn't like it.'
Accuracy in this context is, and can only be, an entirely subjective concept, whereas in most contexts, it's an objective one: 'these digital stylus scales are more accurate than my old Ortofon gauge'.
I'd like to dump the word accuracy and substitute realistic.
Gordon Steadman
23-07-2015, 11:09
Ok, but now we're going round in circles, as you're missing the point. Read my previous post again for the definition of 'accurate'... One recording sounds like a real violin and one doesn't. I'd always choose to listen to the recording that sounded the most real, and use that as the benchmark for voicing my system's musical presentation around.
The Meat Loaf album you're referring is (sonically speaking) a bad recording. Therefore, if you were to voice your system to make that recording sound good (to your ears), how would your system then sound when playing recordings that don't need such 'modifying'?
Surely you can see my point? :)
Marco.
Yeah sure but I like arguing with you:ner:
The reality is that if you get the guitar right then something like sax might not be right. It's a balancing act rather than simply right or wrong. Wind and string - there's got to be some humour in there. Even with guitar I bet there are those who will analyse the guitar into its constituent parts...
Yes, Clive, but again the point is being missed :doh:
It's not about the actual instrument being used, it's about the ability of the recording to faithfully capture the sound of that instrument, and subsequently for a hi-fi system to faithfully reproduce that sound. Therefore, in that respect, whether a drum, violin or guitar is used is irrelevant.
Marco.
I love Bat out of Hell. As it is recorded it is shit and probably scrapes layers off what is left of my ears. So I have re-recorded it, taming all the nasties and put it on a CD and the Mac. ?
Wow! Did you record all the vocal parts yourself? Do Meatloaf or CBS know about this? ;)
Arkless Electronics
23-07-2015, 11:15
Reality is different for everyone though..What i hear as reality may well not be yours etc...doesnt make it any less valid
I disagree. If we all stand in the same room listening to the same live music then we all have the same reference point as to what realism sounds like.
Holy moly! Let's sum up as follows what everyone is saying:
'I value accuracy. I like the sound my system makes. Therefore my system is accurate, otherwise I wouldn't like it.'
Accuracy in this context is, and can only be, an entirely subjective concept, whereas in most contexts, it's an objective one: 'these digital stylus scales are more accurate than my old Ortofon gauge'.
Point is spectacularly being missed yet again. That's why these discussions go around in circles! See my last reply to Clive, also my post referring to the recording of the solo violinist.
Marco.
Yes, Clive, but again the point is being missed :doh:
It's not about the actual instrument being used, it's about the ability of the recording to faithfully capture the sound of that instrument, and then for the hi-fi system to faithfully reproduce that sound. Therefore, in that respect, whether a drum, violin or guitar is used is irrelevant.
Marco.
But Marco it doesn't work as simply as that. There will be acoustic anomalies in every room. The room to my thinking is part of the system. Not all frequencies are treated equally. Then you have loudspeakers.....
I just want my system to sound good!
If I play a record/cd that makes my jaw drop, I don't think "wow that's accurate" I just think "wow" and want to keep listening. If someone heard it and said that it wasn't actually how it should sound, and then played it to me in a system that was supposedly accurate and more hifi, but I didn't like it so much when heard through that system, then (SHOCK) I would probably pretty to listen to it on my own system...
Then again, there is an avenue that could be explored of an analogy with viewing colours on a monitor/tv, but as these can be accurately calibrated using kit other than just opinion I'm not sure how helpful it would be. I do know that when you calibrate your screen for the first time it can sometimes take a couple of days for your brain to accept it as correct.
R
Yeah sure but I like arguing with you:ner:
Lol - I suspect some others here are being as deliberately obtuse! :D
Marco.
anthonyTD
23-07-2015, 11:19
Again, spot on!
The reality is that if you get the guitar right then something like sax might not be right. It's a balancing act rather than simply right or wrong. Wind and string - there's got to be some humour in there. Even with guitar I bet there are those who will analyse the guitar into its constituent parts...
One recording sounds like a real violin and one doesn't. I'd always choose to listen to the recording that sounded the most real.
I hate violins.
I'd listen to the recording that made it sound like a cello.
I love cellos.
[emoji8]
I disagree. If we all stand in the same room listening to the same live music then we all have the same reference point as to what realism sounds like.
But your conclusions may well differ and not translate well to how systems sound in a room.
If I play a record/cd that makes my jaw drop, I don't think "wow that's accurate" I just think "wow" and want to keep listening.
What about instead: "wow that sounds like a real guitar!" *That* is what should make your jaw drop, and any sound you consider as being less real, should adjust the level of that jaw dropping accordingly! ;)
Marco.
Yeah sure but I like arguing with you:ner:
no you don't.
I hate violins.
I'd listen to the recording that made it sound like a cello.
I love cellos.
[emoji8]
Like I said before, it matters not a jot what instrument is being used, in order to judge whether or not a recording of said instrument sounds real.
Marco.
walpurgis
23-07-2015, 11:22
The reality is that if you get the guitar right then something like sax might not be right. It's a balancing act rather than simply right or wrong. Wind and string - there's got to be some humour in there. Even with guitar I bet there are those who will analyse the guitar into its constituent parts...
Decent tonality should not require different speakers surely?
But Marco it doesn't work as simply as that. There will be acoustic anomalies in every room. The room to my thinking is part of the system. Not all frequencies are treated equally. Then you have loudspeakers.....
It's noise and distortion that are the main obstacles to getting a realistic sound, I think. Not room anomalies, although no-one wants a super-reflective room or bass-boom.
In particular I think it is noise that masks the very subtle clues that tell the primitive part of our brain that what we are hearing is at least a facsimile of reality. That's why the most striking upgrades are not necessarily new speakers or whatever but doing something that drops the noise floor.
Again, spot on!
Yes, but you don't voice your system to try and reproduce one particular instrument realistically, unless all you do is listen to music containing that one particular instrument.
It's about ensuring that your system has adequate dynamic range and sufficiently low coloration, in order for it to reproduce ALL musical instruments as realistically as possible. Some, however, will sound better than others, due to the nature of your system's sonic abilities :)
Anyway, I'm off out now, so will continue this discussion later :cool:
Marco.
anthonyTD
23-07-2015, 11:32
When describing the sound of instruments, It all depends on whether someone has had a good demonstration of how each instrument should sound!
Either way you look at this discussion, you will get those who strive to build a system that ultimately plays music that is enjoyable to them, and connects ultimately with them, and not necessary anyone else.
Then you will get those who's main ambition it is to play a recording exactly as it was meant to sound [by the engineer] warts and all, either way, both approaches will still be miles away from reality!
The closest idea you are going to get as to whether your system does a particular instrument as close as possible to the real thing, is to record the sound of said person playing said instrument, then playing the recording back to them, and asking their opinion, even then, it will be their interpretation of what they perceive that instrument to sound like, but they will be more qualified to make a trusted judgement than a non musician.
A...
Point is spectacularly being missed yet again. That's why these discussions go around in circles! See my last reply to Clive, also my post referring to the recording of the solo violinist.
Marco.
OK. Hands up anyone here who thinks they have an inaccurate system, and values the system for any reason other than accuracy.
Most modern recordings are eq'd and compressed to hell. Even so, they can sound extremely good. I'll just instance Daft Punk's Random Access Memories....its a grand listen and stellar full range sound.
If you only listened to modern recordings such as this you might want to optimise your system to maximise enjoyment, and I wouldn't have a problem with that, this is a broad church and who am I to dictate your priorities. And who knows what gear it was monitored and mixed on, because if we're talking about fidelity, fidelity to mixdown is probably the only valid target with recent heavily produced material.
If you are listening to purist recordings, recorded essentially flat with no compression, whether fifties jazz, Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Sessions or even some ROIO's you have a valid point of reference to assemble a system which is optimised to reproduce real instruments.
I don't think these two approaches are necessarily mutually exclusive.
Most modern recordings are eq'd and compressed to hell. Even so, they can sound extremely good. I'll just instance Daft Punk's Random Access Memories....its a grand listen and stellar full range sound.
If you only listened to modern recordings such as this you might want to optimise your system to maximise enjoyment, and I wouldn't have a problem with that, this is a broad church and who am I to dictate your priorities. And who knows what gear it was monitored and mixed on, because if we're talking about fidelity, fidelity to mixdown is probably the only valid target with recent heavily produced material.
If you are listening to purist recordings, recorded essentially flat with no compression, whether fifties jazz, Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Sessions or even some ROIO's you have a valid point of reference to assemble a system which is optimised to reproduce real instruments.
I don't think these two approaches are necessarily mutually exclusive.
Hi Nial,
I think a fair bit of Daft punks Random access memories was recorded old school in the analogue domain.
It's noise and distortion that are the main obstacles to getting a realistic sound, I think. Not room anomalies, although no-one wants a super-reflective room or bass-boom.
In particular I think it is noise that masks the very subtle clues that tell the primitive part of our brain that what we are hearing is at least a facsimile of reality. That's why the most striking upgrades are not necessarily new speakers or whatever but doing something that drops the noise floor.
I agree with you Martin on noise floor reduction but this is nothing compared to room anomalies. Much of what we hear is reflected sound so sorting this area out as much as possible can make a significant difference indeed.
For me one of the areas I feel that needs addressing in order to achieve realistic sound is scale never mind detail and distortion etc.
Gordon Steadman
23-07-2015, 11:59
Wow! Did you record all the vocal parts yourself? Do Meatloaf or CBS know about this? ;)
I try and keep my talent hidden....with great success so far:(
Gordon Steadman
23-07-2015, 12:02
no you don't.
Oh yes I do:lol:
I'm an argumentative devil:mad:
It's noise and distortion that are the main obstacles to getting a realistic sound, I think. Not room anomalies, although no-one wants a super-reflective room or bass-boom.
In particular I think it is noise that masks the very subtle clues that tell the primitive part of our brain that what we are hearing is at least a facsimile of reality. That's why the most striking upgrades are not necessarily new speakers or whatever but doing something that drops the noise floor.
Improving the noise floor will help with fine detail which will help with soundstaging and imaging which are a significant factor to do with realism for some. For others tonality is more important.
The issue I have with typical UK rooms is that they are typically 12ft to 15ft wide so if you have speakers that produce a fair bit of lowish bass then it's hard to avoid boom. This then masks the mid-range. Going back about 3 decades speakers in the UK tended to be stand mount small affairs, such speakers ameliorated these room issues. Speakers are not quite the same nowadays. With 12ft wide rooms it's not so unusual to have reflection issues too. System setup can fix a lot of these issues, a good many systems I've heard have had little setup done so I find this is an issue many have.
I've never had any room problems in my present house and never had boomy bass even with big, bass-heavy speakers. I sympathise with those who do. However I would sugest that lowering the nosie floor makes the sound more immediate and reduces the perception that it is being created by machines or coming out of loudspeakers.
When describing the sound of instruments, It all depends on whether someone has had a good demonstration of how each instrument should sound!
Either way you look at this discussion, you will get those who strive to build a system that ultimately plays music that is enjoyable to them, and connects ultimately with them, and not necessary anyone else.
Then you will get those who's main ambition it is to play a recording exactly as it was meant to sound [by the engineer] warts and all, either way, both approaches will still be miles away from reality!
The closest idea you are going to get as to whether your system does a particular instrument as close as possible to the real thing, is to record the sound of said person playing said instrument, then playing the recording back to them, and asking their opinion, even then, it will be their interpretation of what they perceive that instrument to sound like, but they will be more qualified to make a trusted judgement than a non musician.
A...
When I record my acoustic and replay it on my main system, the biggest obstacle to "does it sound like the original" is actually volume level. Whilst it sounds incredible (the recording when using a good mic) at 85DB, at any reasonable distance from the real instrument, it is at nowhere near that level.
At high volume you hear stuff you just don't hear/notice from the original instrument. The reality is that as the player, you actually hear what is being played rather differently to someone 2 metres away not only in terms of volume but also due to the way the instrument radiates sound.
In that sense it is a lost cause, unless you regard the mic position as reflecting the sound of the instrument. What I am saying is even that is a variable and what the mic picks up depends on its position, not on the supposed sound of the instrument - it hasn't really got a fixed sound. Pretty obvious really.
That's why I keep saying the best you can ever do is to get it to sound like a recording. a lot of systems I have heard (and owned) can't even do that. it is not as trivial a task as you might think.
Oldpinkman
23-07-2015, 12:33
When I record my acoustic and replay it on my main system, the biggest obstacle to "does it sound like the original" is actually volume level. Whilst it sounds incredible (the recording when using a good mic) at 85DB, at any reasonable distance from the real instrument, it is at nowhere near that level.
At high volume you hear stuff you just don't hear/notice from the original instrument. The reality is that as the player, you actually hear what is being played rather differently to someone 2 metres away not only in terms of volume but also due to the way the instrument radiates sound.
In that sense it is a lost cause, unless you regard the mic position as reflecting the sound of the instrument. What I am saying is even that is a variable and what the mic picks up depends on its position, not on the supposed sound of the instrument - it hasn't really got a fixed sound. Pretty obvious really.
I may be teaching grandma to suck eggs, in which case apologies, but a guitar is best recorded with 2 mikes (ideally small diaphragm condensers) both about 1 - 1.5 m from the guitar, one "pointed at" the headstock, and one pointed at the base. Never one mike at the soundhole. And in a quiet studio. I did a quick recording the other day to show my stepson how to use the kit, and recorded the guitar through its pickup which is an AP5 and includes a small condenser inside the guitar. All I could hear playing was every string squeak and duff note. On playback the recording seemed dominated by birdsong - we had recorded with the door open! :)
anthonyTD
23-07-2015, 12:58
Yep,
I agree, there are many ways to capture the performance of an instrument, including the human voice, and how it is recorded will have a huge impact on how it will sound on a replay system, which is why i still insist that there is no way in hell of knowing whether your system is reproducing faithfully what has been captured in the recording studio at the time of recording, the best we can hope for is a system that plays music in a way that connects with us on a level that we have experienced,ie; what certain sounds should sound like to us on an individual level!
When I record my acoustic and replay it on my main system, the biggest obstacle to "does it sound like the original" is actually volume level. Whilst it sounds incredible (the recording when using a good mic) at 85DB, at any reasonable distance from the real instrument, it is at nowhere near that level.
At high volume you hear stuff you just don't hear/notice from the original instrument. The reality is that as the player, you actually hear what is being played rather differently to someone 2 metres away not only in terms of volume but also due to the way the instrument radiates sound.
In that sense it is a lost cause, unless you regard the mic position as reflecting the sound of the instrument. What I am saying is even that is a variable and what the mic picks up depends on its position, not on the supposed sound of the instrument - it hasn't really got a fixed sound. Pretty obvious really.
Hi Nial,
I think a fair bit of Daft punks Random access memories was recorded old school in the analogue domain.
Probably why it sounds so good. But very produced sound - certainly not flat and certainly compression and other effects, which was my point. But sounds great, doesn't it!
Yes very well produced with big rich meaty sound. No compression audible on the vinyl.
Great album if a little mixed. Really nice when these type of artists appreciate and go to so much effort with the SQ.
Loose yourself to dance for me is the best track on the album and has wonderful weight to the recording, I'm sure this was one of the pure analogue tracks!
Yes very well produced with big rich meaty sound. No compression audible on the vinyl.
Great album if a little mixed. Really nice when these type of artists appreciate and go to so much effort with the SQ.
Loose yourself to dance for me is the best track on the album and has wonderful weight to the recording, I'm sure this was one of the pure analogue tracks!
Hi there James
You misunderstand me - I'm not talking Loudness Wars type compression...most close miked or D/I'd into the desk stuff will have had compression and EQ applied - ironically so that it sounds a little more like the dynamics and FR of something miked distantly. The upside for the engineer is that a clean reverbless signal on its own track gives more freedom to apply effects retrospectively. If this is sensitively done it just has the effect of tidying the sound. Purist recordings, either of the golden age, or now, are usually distantly miked so this doesn't apply - the reverberation of the space recorded in is captured, and the distant miking makes the tidying effect of mild compression unecessary.
You can still have a very satisfyingly dynamic sounding album, just it will sound less ragged and more produced, which is what I'm hearing here.
The Kate Rusby album Sleepless sounds very open and dynamic, a demonstration quality sound. I remember saying to my mate, who plays on it, "I bet they didn't use any compression"
"Loads" he replied....
Yes very well produced with big rich meaty sound. No compression audible on the vinyl.
Great album if a little mixed. Really nice when these type of artists appreciate and go to so much effort with the SQ.
Loose yourself to dance for me is the best track on the album and has wonderful weight to the recording, I'm sure this was one of the pure analogue tracks!
Reading this http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul13/articles/daft-punk.htm it seems that everything eventually went via digital at least once. But they clearly put a huge amount of effort (and cash) into the sound. Impressive stuff.
Reading this http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul13/articles/daft-punk.htm it seems that everything eventually went via digital at least once. But they clearly put a huge amount of effort (and cash) into the sound. Impressive stuff.
That's a brilliant article - thanks very much for that.
Its a really lush album even on mp3, and although its not my kind of music, I can appreciate the work and enjoy it to a point. Synth voicing is something I dont really like much and alas the album is full of it. Beautifly produced and engineered though
crackorama
23-07-2015, 17:18
Jez , how are you mate.
Just out of interest what would you choose for your own listening regardless of any cost or availability ?
Best Regards Niel.
Arkless Electronics
23-07-2015, 17:43
Jez , how are you mate.
Just out of interest what would you choose for your own listening regardless of any cost or availability ?
Best Regards Niel.
Hi Niel,
"what would you choose for your own listening regardless of any cost or availability ? " Well I'm self sufficient in amplification but makes I particularly like would include Quad, Krell and Audio Research.
Speakers. ESL57 and 63 plus Martin Logans, many of the KEF Reference range and their replacements, plus Spendor and Harbeth.
TT's PT Anniversary, Logic DM101 and Rock Reference.
Arms Mission 774, top SME's but not the old 3009 in any guise.
Cartridges. Ortofon MC's are usually very nice.
There's a few bits and pieces to be getting along with :)
Hi Niel,
I've been better.... the recent trashing of my reputation on pfm
I am assuming the acronym is for a rival forum.
Do not let it get you down sir, take every comment with a pinch of salt, it pays not to take forums too seriously.
I am assuming the acronym is for a rival forum.
Do not let it get you down sir, take every comment with a pinch of salt, it pays not to take forums too seriously.
PFM is pink fish media forum box
The biggest problem will always be what are you trying to reproduce? Is it the original sound of the music in the recording studio, if that is the case you need a system that can pretty much undo what the engineers and masterer's have done, compression, eq etc. If it is how it sounded in the room that the final mix was done, you would need the same mixing console, amps, monitors etc as they have. If it is after the mastering has been done, then you will need to the same equipment as they have. To me Hi-Fi stands for what it is Hi Fidelity which for me means producing the best sound possibly that you like. I met a guy once who liked nothing but treble, and to everyone else his system sounded awful, but to him it sounded perfect. If perfect reproduction is all we were after we would all be using studio monitors and trying to produce the flattest response possible.
Hi Niel,
I've been better.... the recent trashing of my reputation on pfm (news travels fast in a small community so I assume it's common knowledge....) has meant no business since and severe financial hardship (I presume that's the reason but things are generally quiet during summer months). I'll probably be sticking various bits of kit up for sale here very soon to try and ease the penury situation. I'm sticking to it though and currently building a prototype hybrid MC phono stage which is sounding very nice indeed so far. Zero feedback, passive EQ, semi transconductance topology, loads of gain and quiet as a mouse. I hope to demonstrate the prototype to a few people in the North East before long if they are into the idea of me schlepping it along to their place on my motorbike and giving me a bit of feedback as to SQ. Designing kit is the easy bit (well if you've been doing it for decades it is) but persuading anyone to part with the hard earned is another order of difficulty altogether...
"what would you choose for your own listening regardless of any cost or availability ? " Well I'm self sufficient in amplification but makes I particularly like would include Quad, Krell and Audio Research.
Speakers. ESL57 and 63 plus Martin Logans, many of the KEF Reference range and their replacements, plus Spendor and Harbeth.
TT's PT Anniversary, Logic DM101 and Rock Reference.
Arms Mission 774, top SME's but not the old 3009 in any guise.
Cartridges. Ortofon MC's are usually very nice.
There's a few bits and pieces to be getting along with :)
I love the 3009 and 3012. Not sure what I would use with my EMTs and Ortofons otherwise - not the early Ortofon arms that's for sure. Maybe the AT 1503 Mk.III or ATP-12.
+1 on the Quad 57s, but not the 63s and +1 on the Martin Logans.
Still, we can't expect to agree on everything
I like my 3009 as well. well built and an everlasting stylish design; sounds good too. Only arm I'd change for might be a good mission but I doubt I could do without removable heads now.
Arkless Electronics
23-07-2015, 22:13
I love the 3009 and 3012. Not sure what I would use with my EMTs and Ortofons otherwise - not the early Ortofon arms that's for sure. Maybe the AT 1503 Mk.III or ATP-12.
+1 on the Quad 57s, but not the 63s and +1 on the Martin Logans.
Still, we can't expect to agree on everything
3012 is better but but both series 2 and 3 3009's I found rather soft sounding, if beautiful to look at! I use an AT1005 MKII here on the turntable that gets the most use so maybe we agree on Audo Technica arms :)
Hi Niel,
makes I particularly like would include Quad, Krell and Audio Research.
Speakers. ESL57 and 63 plus Martin Logans, many of the KEF Reference range and their replacements, plus Spendor and Harbeth.
TT's PT Anniversary, Logic DM101 and Rock Reference.
Arms Mission 774, top SME's but not the old 3009 in any guise.
Cartridges. Ortofon MC's are usually very nice.
There's a few bits and pieces to be getting along with :)
Not much in that list that gets ignored these days, although I suppose you could argue that the ESL 63 have fallen out of favour a bit.
anthonyTD
24-07-2015, 08:07
:)
The biggest problem will always be what are you trying to reproduce? Is it the original sound of the music in the recording studio, if that is the case you need a system that can pretty much undo what the engineers and masterer's have done, compression, eq etc. If it is how it sounded in the room that the final mix was done, you would need the same mixing console, amps, monitors etc as they have. If it is after the mastering has been done, then you will need to the same equipment as they have. To me Hi-Fi stands for what it is Hi Fidelity which for me means producing the best sound possibly that you like. I met a guy once who liked nothing but treble, and to everyone else his system sounded awful, but to him it sounded perfect. If perfect reproduction is all we were after we would all be using studio monitors and trying to produce the flattest response possible.
Oldpinkman
24-07-2015, 08:35
Not much in that list that gets ignored these days, although I suppose you could argue that the ESL 63 have fallen out of favour a bit.
Not by me they don't ;)
Oldpinkman
24-07-2015, 08:40
To me Hi-Fi stands for what it is Hi Fidelity which for me means producing the best sound possibly that you like. .
That's a bit of an oxymoron. If Hi-Fi for you (and me) stands for Hi Fidelity, then it does not mean producing the best sound you like. It means producing the sound that is supplied to it with "lots of truth". Fidelity = truth = closeness to the original = not changed to be the way I like it, nor any other sort of change.
So HiFi can stand for anything you want it to - like "only with 8 drivers per speaker" but
Hi Fidelity - by definition does NOT mean "tailored to how I like it". Quite the opposite.
For what little that might matter
That's a bit of an oxymoron.
Hi Fidelity - by definition does NOT mean "tailored to how I like it". Quite the opposite.
For what little that might matter
Let's assume that everyone here thinks they have an 'accurate' system; i.e. a system with a lot of truth. Unless all these systems produce the same sound from the same recordings (and I'm guessing they don't), they can't all be 'hifi'; or, at least, some must have more fidelity than others. Now, who gets to decide which ones fit where on a scale of 1 to 10? Ken Kessler? Martin Colloms? Alan Sircom?
Oldpinkman
24-07-2015, 09:20
Hi-Fi isn't "perfect Fidelity". That would be pe-fi!
But it is true that God has yet to appoint a subjective arbiter for HiFi
Because it is "HiFi" not "PeFi" - I can at least intend a "neutral - high truth" sound across most of the frequency band, whilst accepting bits of it are Lo-Fi - To be less obtuse, my system is , in my perception, very close to the truth, except below about 50Hz where it is measurably and obviously not close to the truth (when not using a sub-woofer). It remains HiFi - and doesn't become "NoFi" just because it loses the bass a bit
If I could seamlessly add the bass properly it would be "Higher Fi" :)
Well as we are a subjective forum then on here everyone has that right re their own systems. After alk if we all only used the gear someone else has decided it hifi then we would be in a dull place and have no need of forums to discuss it.
Everyone has their own idea of what they like and all hear different things. Nothinh wrong with discussing it but not to tell folk their stuff is not hifi.
Gordon Steadman
24-07-2015, 09:33
Not by me they don't ;)
Come on ...we ALL know that the 57s are better:lol::ner:
Gordon Steadman
24-07-2015, 09:34
Let's assume that everyone here thinks they have an 'accurate' system; i.e. a system with a lot of truth. Unless all these systems produce the same sound from the same recordings (and I'm guessing they don't), they can't all be 'hifi'; or, at least, some must have more fidelity than others. Now, who gets to decide which ones fit where on a scale of 1 to 10? Ken Kessler? Martin Colloms? Alan Sircom?
Me!
walpurgis
24-07-2015, 09:38
Let's assume that everyone here thinks they have an 'accurate' system; i.e. a system with a lot of truth. Unless all these systems produce the same sound from the same recordings (and I'm guessing they don't), they can't all be 'hifi'; or, at least, some must have more fidelity than others. Now, who gets to decide which ones fit where on a scale of 1 to 10? Ken Kessler? Martin Colloms? Alan Sircom?
My system is a 9. Nobody has a 10! :lol:
Me!
Indeed. It's up to the individual listener to judge how 'truthful' or not their system is, if indeed they even want the 'truth' in the first place! ;)
The bottom line, for me, is that I've deliberately set up my system to be (to my ears and judgement) as transparent as possible to the source music recording, which in turn I believe allows it to faithfully reproduce, as closely as possible, the sound of real voices and instruments - and when it delivers on that, musically, *that* is when my system puts a smile on my face :)
As such, I would never deliberately build a system (or modify specific recordings) to produce a 'comforting sound', or seek for them to sound like anything else other than what I consider they were designed to sound like in the first place. For me, that's hi-fi.
YMMV.
Marco.
walpurgis
24-07-2015, 09:58
I've deliberately set up my system to be (to my ears and judgement) as transparent as possible to the source music recording. Marco.
Exactly what I aim for. It just happens to sound very enjoyable too.
It's not about ruthless forwardness (that some perceive as being revealing). It's the 'open window' effect. The sense that as little as possible of the system is getting between the source and one's ears.
Top man, Geoff. Exactly my view! :thumbsup:
Enjoyment from a hi-fi system, for me, is derived from how real (lacking in artifice, given the nature of the recording) the music reproduced sounds. End of. I'm not looking to own a 'euphonic sound effects generator'.
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
24-07-2015, 10:40
This must be the very best!! Niniety nine and sixty one hundredths percent perfect it says!!
"Guaranteed Max 0.5% Intermodulation Distortion"... <Yawn> :doh: :wanker:
So the 'spec wars', in fact, started in the 50s? ;)
For all (mere) end users, not designers, of audio equipment: trust your ears before any readouts on test equipment!
:exactly:
Marco.
Exactly what I aim for. It just happens to sound very enjoyable too.
It's not about ruthless forwardness (that some perceive as being revealing). It's the 'open window' effect. The sense that as little as possible of the system is getting between the source and one's ears.
Transparency has always been a slight obsession with me and I have always used it as a measure of how well my system is putting across the music. Firebottle,s new preamp (KIN) does this very well indeed. The 'open window' analogy was exactly how I described Alans latest creation.
Top man, Geoff. Exactly my view! :thumbsup:
Enjoyment from a hi-fi system, for me, is derived from how real (lacking in artifice, given the nature of the recording) the music reproduced sounds. End of. I'm not looking to own a 'euphonic sound effects generator'.
Marco.
Even if one does sound immense fun!
'are we going out tonight dear?'
'no pet, I'm staying in to drop acid and enjoy my euphonic sound effects generator'
Where can I buy one?
John Cleese: 'I look down on him, because my system opens a clear window on the sound of recordings'.
Ronnie Barker: 'I look up to him, because my system is accurate in everything except low bass, but I look down on him, because his system is rolled off to sound pleasant.'
Ronnie Corbett: 'I look up to both of them, because all I have is a euphonic sound generator.'
Arkless Electronics
24-07-2015, 12:41
Precisely!
That's a bit of an oxymoron. If Hi-Fi for you (and me) stands for Hi Fidelity, then it does not mean producing the best sound you like. It means producing the sound that is supplied to it with "lots of truth". Fidelity = truth = closeness to the original = not changed to be the way I like it, nor any other sort of change.
So HiFi can stand for anything you want it to - like "only with 8 drivers per speaker" but
Hi Fidelity - by definition does NOT mean "tailored to how I like it". Quite the opposite.
For what little that might matter
You've pretty much nailed it there, Joe.
I've got a euphonic sound generator, it's called a Marantz CD player. Early Fleetwood mac sounds great on it, much better than the recording actually is. But Joy Division is an abomination. That's why you don't want a ESG system, because it will dictate your choice of music for you.
Gordon Steadman
24-07-2015, 12:57
John Cleese: 'I look down on him, because my system opens a clear window on the sound of recordings'.
Ronnie Barker: 'I look up to him, because my system is accurate in everything except low bass, but I look down on him, because his system is rolled off to sound pleasant.'
Ronnie Corbett: 'I look up to both of them, because all I have is a euphonic sound generator.'
"however, all my mates come round to my place as my system sounds 'nicer' than theirs and we get happy on some juice and enjoy the party atmosphere"
Lets examine what hi fi is supposed to be about i.e. the most life like reproduction possible with nothing added and nothing taken away from the original.
How many items of hi fi equipment I wonder are passed by for doing exactly that??! If equipment has an unnaturally warm sound, or slightly excess bass giving impressive "slam", or excess brightness giving an "airy" effect, is it not often these items which are chosen, for sounding "better than real life" than the truly best equipment which gets closest to reality, warts 'n all??? I suspect that this is the case. It's probable that the best pieces of hi fi equipment ever made are regarded as average or also-rans for the sin of not sounding artificially impressive! I wonder what others think about this?
I'm guessing many will say they don't care how accurate it is so long as they like it. If so then why not go the whole hog and add tone controls, graphic equaliser, digital reverb etc.... What is it we actually want from hi fi?
IMHO the very best HiFi is not very well-marketed, so yes, it does get ignored.
That's why you don't want a ESG system, because it will dictate your choice of music for you.
Presaktly! I see we've now added a new term to the 'AoS glossary of hi-fi-isms'... :eyebrows:
Marco.
walpurgis
24-07-2015, 15:51
IMHO the very best HiFi is not very well-marketed, so yes, it does get ignored.
Dunno about "the very best", but ultra expensive Hi-Fi probably is marketed well. But carefully targeted at those with the wherewithal.
I don't want a euphonic sound generator 'cos I got an orgone accumulator - I'll see you sometime later - when I'm through with my accumul....
Yeah man, that's sick! :respect:
Marco.
Hi Nial,
If you are listening to purist recordings, recorded essentially flat with no compression, whether fifties jazz, Cowboy Junkies' Trinity Sessions or even some ROIO's you have a valid point of reference to assemble a system which is optimised to reproduce real instruments.
Yup, and with other (inferior) recordings 'all bets are off', as it were. That's why when assessing my system's ability to faithfully reproduce the sound of real instruments, I use ONLY the type of purist, or 'audiophile' recordings you're referring to above, simply because those are the only ones that get anywhere near to portraying 'reality'.
One such example, and my favourite and most effective way of assessing my system's abilities in that respect, is after having attended a live concert of the BBC National Orchestra of Wales, which Del and I are fortunate takes place every few months at a local venue.
After attending the performance of a particular composer's work (and I should add that we like to sit close to the orchestra, say no more than 2 or 3 rows back from the stage, as we enjoy 'feeling' the music as well as hearing it, particularly during crescendos), there are often CDs on sale in the foyer, from a BBC representative, of the same performance we've just listened to (same composer, orchestra and conductor), and these are top-notch audiophile recordings, produced by the BBC at previous concerts, which in my experience from buying many of them, are superb.
Therefore, after obtaining some of said CDs, and when I return home, with the sound of the live performance I've just listened to still fresh in my mind [that is the key], I play the CD recording of it on my system, sat approximately the same distance away from my 15" Tannoys, as I was from the orchestra, and proceed to play the music at a volume I consider closely replicates what I experienced at the venue.
Then I sit back and ask myself two questions: 'Is the music I'm listening to a REALISTIC snapshot of the live performance I've just attended, and do the recorded instruments reproduced sound LIFELIKE?' 'Essentially, can I shut my eyes, suspend disbelief, and feel that, musically, to a convincing degree, I'm back in front of the orchestra?'
Providing that the recording quality of the CD I'm playing is up to the BBC's usual superb standard, the answer is always a resounding 'Yes'... And *that*, muchachos, for me is the whole point of owning a, carefully considered and constructed, 'high-end' hi-fi system!!
:exactly:
Marco.
Hi Nial,
Yup, and with other (inferior) recordings 'all bets are off', as it were. That's why when assessing my system's ability to faithfully reproduce the sound of real instruments, I use ONLY the type of purist, or 'audiophile' recordings you're referring to above, simply because those are the only ones that get anywhere near to portraying 'reality'.
One such example, and my favourite and most effective way of assessing my system's abilities in that respect, is after having attended a live concert of the BBC National Orchestra of Wales, which Del and I are fortunate takes place every few months at a local venue.
After attending the performance of a particular composer's work (and I should add that we like to sit close to the orchestra, say no more than 2 or 3 rows back from the stage, as we enjoy 'feeling' the music as well as hearing it, particularly during crescendos), there are often CDs on sale in the foyer, from a BBC representative, of the same performance we've just listened to (same composer, orchestra and conductor), and these are top-notch audiophile recordings, produced by the BBC at previous concerts, which in my experience from buying many of them, are superb.
Therefore, after obtaining some of said CDs, and when I return home, with the sound of the live performance I've just listened to still fresh in my mind [that is the key], I play the CD recording of it on my system, sat approximately the same distance away from my 15" Tannoys, as I was from the orchestra, and proceed to play the music at a volume I consider closely replicates what I experienced at the venue.
Then I sit back and ask myself two questions: 'Is the music I'm listening to a REALISTIC snapshot of the live performance I've just attended, and do the recorded instruments reproduced sound LIFELIKE?' 'Essentially, can I shut my eyes, suspend disbelief, and feel that, musically, to a convincing degree, I'm back in front of the orchestra?'
Providing that the recording quality of the CD I'm playing is up to the BBC's usual superb standard, the answer is always a resounding 'Yes'... And *that*, muchachos, for me is the whole point of owning a, carefully considered and constructed, 'high-end' hi-fi system!!
:exactly:
Marco.
Hi Marco
Excellent strategy. And fun. Hell of an instrument, the orchestra....
Same orchestra regularly plays at the PJ University Hall local to me.
I've missed them selling CD's, though, I'll look out next time.
I do find the sound in the PJ, to audience members, is often inferior in all but dynamic range to reproducing well recorded stuff at home. But that's the hall. There is another - smaller - hall locally which has the most stunning sound, but doesn't get used for BBC N.O.W. concerts. It does get used for the Gwynedd senior youth orchestra on occasion, which one of my sons plays in, and has the excellent separation, clarity and dynamic range - just imparts drama, really.
Odd to talk about halls as though they're systems.
But there wouldn't be any point me buying CD's for system evaluation purposes after a concert at the PJ Hall - it's diffuse, muddy and has a terrible natural reverb, and the orchestra plays on a raised dias/stage about four feet higher than the floor the audience are seated on, which doesn't help. The BBC do record concerts there, there's usually a mic tree, and slung and stand mounted mics covering the area. About twenty feet up though, and almost over the players, presumably to minimise the halls undesirable effect. If they slung me up there I imagine I'd enjoy the sound...
Also attended last month a performance of Mozarts Requiem in the big ancient church at Clynnog Fawr - fabulous performance:), below average sound:(. I guess imposing surroundings get a higher priority than sound quality when choosing venues for classical music.
If you're local hall has anything like the sound of the other one I hear regularly, I'm very jealous! Still, the fact it's live, and has that special sense of occasion, which is as yet beyond the reach of any system means I'll still regularly be in the audience, poor sound or no...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.