View Full Version : Fidelity to what? Or what are we tying to achieve with all our expensive gear?
Fidelity to what? Or what are we tying to achieve with all our expensive gear?
This post is in response to a letter published in the January edition of Hi-Fi World magazine, which has got me thinking.
I’m not sure of the copyright situation, so I’ll only quote the salient points of the letter. Should the Moderators require my quotes be pulled, the full letter can be found on page 55 under the title ‘Bring me closer’:
"…the advertising strapline for Quad equipment used to be “the closest approach to the original sound”. But personally, I don’t think that is what hi-fi is all about at all.
….. it is arguable that we don’t want the original sound. The whole point about attending a live concert is to get the excitement of a live show. This is partly based on seeing rather than just hearing the musicians, and partly on the effort one has had to make to get there – I think we derive pleasure from the experience in proportion to the effort we put in to achieve it.
….
So I would argue that the job of a hi-fi system is to give the listener an enjoyable home listening experience, in terms of offering only a facsimile of one take on the original sound, less the extraneous factors which spoil a live concert. In particular, I think that a hi-fi system needs if possible to offer not the same, but more excitement and presence than the original, to compensate for everything that is missing when one listens at home. ……"
Now clearly the author, not being a member of AoS, cannot defend himself in this forum so I will be conciliatory in my comments. First of all I do understand what he means by the futility of faithfully recreating the experience of attending a live concert: there is not a system anywhere in the world today that comes close to doing that.
All a sound system can do is be sufficiently good in dealing with those aspects of sound reproduction that are important to you. No system can do it all; that is why we all use different equipment, because we all have a different agenda.
My complaint is that the reproduction of live un-amplified instruments is the only source of comparison we have, to make sure we are on the right track. How do you know where to stop in making the home presentation have ‘more excitement and presence than the original'? Clearly no one wants a sound system that is unpleasant to listen to or is un-involving (that is, does no engage the listener), but where is the fidelity or value in simply producing a ‘nice sound’? Concepts of emotional involvement are of little help here, since I can be moved by hearing something on a small portable radio or played on a cheap ‘Dansett’ record player.
No, I’ll stick with my system and approach which does what the author of the letter claims it should do in the first sentence of the last paragraph quoted, and eschew everything that follows in the second sentence.
Well that’s my take, what do other members want to achieve from their systems?
Regards
The Grand Wazoo
15-12-2009, 00:41
This is a good post Barry, & a subject I have quite firm views on. It was chewed over a bit a little while ago in two threads started by Dave K / Dave C / Wobbly Dave
'The Vain Pursuit of Excellence' (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3723)
'Return to Nirvana' (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3877)
I'll be mulling over what you've written so I can make my reply tomorrow.
Fidelity to what? Or what are we tying to achieve with all our expensive gear?
what do other members want to achieve from their systems?
Well the first question doesn't apply to me.
I don't own any expensive gear and never have done.
The second question is slightly different.
All i need from my stuff is a sound that i can happily live with, until i find another diy project that takes my fancy.
I realise now, that for me, the satisfaction that comes from building and tinkering with equipment, outweighs the desire for that elusive "audio nirvana".
I tend to listen to a limited number of CDs, because i know them well and can easily spot any changes in the sound. So i suppose i'm not the music lover i once thought i was.
Steve Toy
15-12-2009, 01:29
Barry, there is no law against quoting any published article provided you cite the source correctly, as you have. All published articles rightly lend themselves to scrutiny.
There is only an issue if you plagiarise what you've read by passing the work as your own. You have clearly not done this.
Steve, BA (Hons).
To add, dynamic range is the biggest key to fidelity followed by linearity and phase coherence. Everything else drops into place. There are compromises of course but a pleasing/euphonic sound isn't always the most faithful to either the raw musical performance or the recording thereof.
Now clearly the author, not being a member of AoS, cannot defend himself in this forum
Yes he is. If he happens upon and wishes to comment on anything written on this thread, he is free to register and contribute accordingly.
Personally I think comparing home audio to 'live' sound is all wrong from the word go.
How often can you hear live acoustic non-amplified music at a concert? Mostly all classical/rock/pop concerts are amplified in some way or other. Then you have non-acoustic instruments. How are they supposed to sound?
Also, live sound Vs playback at home. The only way you could ever compare the two is if you have a recording of the exact same concert you went to. And even then, it will depend on the microphone choice/placement/recording chain. I suppose the most accurate rendition would be a binaural head recording with the head placed right next to where you were sitting/standing at the concert. The only problem then is that to recreate the soundfield accurately, you would have to listen to the recoding through headphones. But which headphones?
Also, at a concert, the room is usually FAR bigger than your room at home, will have totally different acoustics, and you won't have a room full of hundreds or thousands of people, and you'll never recreate the atmosphere or emotional experience of being at a live concert
Basically, you can NEVER recreate a live concert in your listening/living room, so it's pointless comparing recorded Vs live sound.
IMO.
The Grand Wazoo
15-12-2009, 12:23
As you say, Barry, Fidelity to What?
I'd say that this is perhaps the most important question we can ask ourselves about audio gear and maybe the most difficult to answer because to do so requires brutal honesty and to many 'hi-fi people', a questioning of one's motives.
I've been thinking about this quite a lot lately as a result of moving my equipment to a new room in a new house and I realised that I actually have three quite different and distinct ways of listening to music. I'll get to that in a minute.
As I said in the aforementioned threads, and in agreement with you, Barry, I appreciated a while ago that none of us stand a cat's chance in hell of accurately reproducing live music and importantly, the experience of listening to it, in our homes with our hi-fi equipment.
For some people, the sooner they realise this the sooner they will become more content with their set-up. This allows you to become more appreciative of what it does well rather than being over-critical of what it does less well. At this point you are better able to define exactly what you want to get from your system and you'll become closer to the point where you can slip off the never ending spiral of 'upgrades' (which more usually turn out to be tail-chasing sidesteps onto parallel but different paths). After this, any changes you make become more informed and, therefore, more meaningful.
I think of this as being 'at peace with my system'.
When all of this clicked for me, my listening habits and attitude to hi-fi changed significantly. My Damascene moment was during a performance by Neil Young with Pearl Jam at the Reading Festival (in 1994?) and it was pretty depressing actually! – The thought crossed my mind that there was no way on earth that anything in a domestic situation could begin to approximate this experience, so what I was trying to do with hi-fi was a complete waste of time. At this point, I was most certainly not at peace with my system!
It made me re-evaluate two different things:
1. What I wanted to get from my recordings
2. What is the essence of great live music
Next I compared the above to what I thought could (and couldn't) be done.
Now, you might be thinking that the best way of answering Barry's question would be for me to state right now, quite clearly what the result of this re-evaluation was. The trouble is I'm not sure I can put it all into words! But since we're among friends & I don't mind a little light ridicule, I'll try!
Put simply, the main thing is that I want to get as close as I can to what was intended. This is not usually the same as what it sounded like to the musicians as they were playing, or at the mixing desk. Since I have no way of knowing what was intended, or how it actually sounded this leaves me with a bit of a problem. So, what are the things I listen out for and what are the things that make a great recording sound great? After all, the whole point of this is that I want to enjoy the music I listen to.
To inform this, I had to assess how I listen to music. In the cases of the first two it's easier to describe what I'm looking for.
Sometimes I want to get 'forensic' & pick the strands apart to get an idea of how the recording has been built up from its constituent parts.
This is an academic exercise, if you like, rather than the pursuit of musical enjoyment - though often I can enjoy a piece of music better later once I've done this. Things like convincing soundstages & image placement and scale aren't so important to me here. I get the forensic effect from a good pair of headphones.
Sometimes I want to do something else while I'm listening to music – I can't give it my full attention. This is quite a lot of the time actually, as I like to have music around me at all times wherever possible. Some would call this background music, but this could imply it's not being enjoyed or is even being ignored – music should never be wallpaper, chosen for it's inability to offend anyone over it's inherent worth as an artistic expression. So let's call it non-critical listening.
For non-critical listening, most important is that I want to understand the feel of what was recorded in order to try to understand the emotion behind the music. It's during these times that I explore music that's new to me, or 'difficult' music that I'm having trouble getting to grips with. It's the portable radio or Dansette effect described above, but with a little more sophistication. This is because every now & then I may want to stop what I'm doing and listen carefully to a passage or a song. Because of this, it needs to be capable of a certain standard and that standard is actually pretty good by most peoples expectations of what can be achieved. I can achieve this with old gear bought cheaply, which has the advantage of giving me the opportunity to play with different combinations, try things I might not instinctively do and indulge my fondness for older kit. Best of all, it allows me to own some nice stuff!
Sometimes I want to do nothing but sit quietly and devote all of my attention to listening to music – critical listening.
For critical listening, I want acoustic instruments to sound as close as possible to how they really sound – especially guitars and cellos. I want to hear the acoustic qualities and scale of the room that the recording was made in and where the players were in it when the recording took place. That 'feel' that I spoke about above but I also want a realistic sense of scale and impact to the sound – something that's so much harder with amplified music. Isn't it a little odd that a guitar played through a 30 watt combo-amp with a 10" speaker – both of a quality that would have most hi-fi folks running a mile, is so tough to replicate accurately through a hi-fi?
There's a lot more that I want that I can't easily describe - I know what it is when I hear it and it just sounds 'right'……………but that doesn't make it correct or accurate!!!
What I'm after (and have now got) is a system that enables me to listen, with enjoyment, to an ever-wider range of music; that can 'do' everything from dub to punk to jazz, and from solo piano to full-scale orchestral music.
Is the system 'faithful' to the original sound? I don't know and don't particularly care. What I'm glad to have moved on from is a 'listening for differences' state of mind, aka 'audio nervosa'.
Steve Toy
16-12-2009, 02:19
I don't believe any system whatever the cost can be 100% faithful and accurate. Dynamic range is the key. A drum kit only a few feet away from you is going to give you 140 dB. The very best hi-fi systems with mammouth Focal Maestro Utopia speakers with top-notch kit behind them all properly set up will maybe deliver 120 dB.
We basically strive to get as close as we can even if it is still quite a long way off the absolute.
From a musical enjoyment POV, if your system enables you to listen actively to a wide range of music and be drawn into the musical performance you're getting there.
One of the biggest problems I find is the difference in level and quality of bass on many CDs. You can set up your system to sound like you want with one particular CD and then others sound either anaemic or bloated with way too much mid-bass. For me good bass is the foundation for the rest of the spectrum. Good bass enhances treble IMO.
steveinspain
16-12-2009, 08:51
My system has to give me emotional response - meaning I listen to be moved. Accuracy or detail are not really relevant, but I do get a buzz from hearing that little noise not heard before.
Often I fail to get sucked in, but when I am in the right place, mentally, I will often shed tears and have the biggest smile, even at the same time.
I have never been able to describe what one bit of gear does or sounds like, but I do know what sounds better TO ME. That is all I care about really.
Live music can be amazing, but rarely am I relaxed in my own home when I hear it, so I cannot become immersed in it. My father was a musician, and as a kid I got to hear lots of live music at home which was fantastic. Living where I do there are few chances to get to any concerts, but there have been a few times when I have listened to musicians jamming, and the pleasure is there, but it is different from being in my house, listening to what I want to hear when I choose.
steveinspain
16-12-2009, 08:52
My system has to give me emotional response - meaning I listen to be moved. Accuracy or detail are not really relevant, but I do get a buzz from hearing that little noise not heard before.
Often I fail to get sucked in, but when I am in the right place, mentally, I will often shed tears and have the biggest smile, even at the same time.
I have never been able to describe what one bit of gear does or sounds like, but I do know what sounds better TO ME. That is all I care about really.
Live music can be amazing, but rarely am I relaxed in my own home when I hear it, so I cannot become immersed in it. My father was a musician, and as a kid I got to hear lots of live music at home which was fantastic. Living where I do there are few chances to get to any concerts, but there have been a few times when I have listened to musicians jamming, and the pleasure is there, but it is different from being in my house, listening to what I want to hear when I choose.
Nice subject and nice posts from everybody. :)
To me, listening to music, is NOT just reproducing with some kind of fidelity the instruments (or the recording or whatever).
What I seek for is create a canvas where different memories can pile up, and where my mind can wander freely mixing these memories with my actual state of mind. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst. Probably what some call "emotion".
In order to achieve this, ideally, the system must reproduce the recording without any artifacts that may attract my attention.
Any artifacts, be good (excessive detail in a part of the audible spectrum) or bad (unwanted distortion, blurring or unbalance) spoil my pleasure simply by being noticeable.
So, "balance" is essential for my version of "hifi" but "accurate reproduction" (whatever this may be) may not be important. ;)
Haselsh1
19-12-2009, 17:06
Hmmm... I've just got on to this thread and I like it. I for one certainly do not want a 'live' sound from my Hi-Fi. If I want it live I go to a gig. What I do want from my Hi-Fi is music of a certain quality, played to a certain standard. I know not what that standard is until I hear it, and that I guess, is why we audition. I also want the music played in such a way that I can chillout and relax, maybe going into an almost dreamlike state. Yes, I know this is very personal but then the whole Hi-Fi/music thing is very personal. I do not own one 'live' album.
I strive for a sound that gives the impression of being real, a presence in the room. This isn't the same as striving for an exact replication of a live sound, this simply isn't possible (yes, drum, piano etc - they real thing is incredible and challenging), it would be a pointless and fruitless journey.
Sixteen years ago, I attended many small scale jazz gigs, often in local pubs (ahem..) TC's I had gave me the scale and intensity of these instruments close-up when playing good 1950's recordings on CD (the CD mastering engineers obviously *listened* to their work and almost certainly had decent tape masters to work with).
These days, I find the *warts-and-all* approach of pro monitors a bit too much. I can't play at ear-splitting levels as I used to when the neighbours were out and no longer care for the absolutely ruthless analysis a good monitor brings to the musical party. I suppose a pair of ADM9.1's would be perfect in my smallish room, but the bridged Crown/BC2's I use have easily enough clarity in the mid and top and the bass, although nowhere near world class, is good enough for now. I can just sit back and revel in the music, often hearing musical details I hadn't noticed before. The valve bits I have add to this "humanity" either by doing things solid state doesn't or, more likely, retaining the bits in better harmony with my ears and losing what doesn't matter (if you see what I mean).
At the end of the day, we consumers are limited to the abilities of the mastering/cutting engineer for the quality of the software we buy and this is about as close as we can get to the original recordings I think.
anthonyTD
19-12-2009, 19:55
Sixteen years ago, I attended many small scale jazz gigs, often in local pubs (ahem..) TC's I had gave me the scale and intensity of these instruments close-up when playing good 1950's recordings on CD (the CD mastering engineers obviously *listened* to their work and almost certainly had decent tape masters to work with).
These days, I find the *warts-and-all* approach of pro monitors a bit too much. I can't play at ear-splitting levels as I used to when the neighbours were out and no longer care for the absolutely ruthless analysis a good monitor brings to the musical party. I suppose a pair of ADM9.1's would be perfect in my smallish room, but the bridged Crown/BC2's I use have easily enough clarity in the mid and top and the bass, although nowhere near world class, is good enough for now. I can just sit back and revel in the music, often hearing musical details I hadn't noticed before. The valve bits I have add to this "humanity" either by doing things solid state doesn't or, more likely, retaining the bits in better harmony with my ears and losing what doesn't matter (if you see what I mean).
At the end of the day, we consumers are limited to the abilities of the mastering/cutting engineer for the quality of the software we buy and this is about as close as we can get to the original recordings I think.
:)
steveinspain
19-12-2009, 21:25
Hmmm... I've just got on to this thread and I like it. I for one certainly do not want a 'live' sound from my Hi-Fi. If I want it live I go to a gig. What I do want from my Hi-Fi is music of a certain quality, played to a certain standard. I know not what that standard is until I hear it, and that I guess, is why we audition. I also want the music played in such a way that I can chillout and relax, maybe going into an almost dreamlike state. Yes, I know this is very personal but then the whole Hi-Fi/music thing is very personal. I do not own one 'live' album.
That is what I was trying to say.
However, I do own several live albums, and many can hit the spot for me when heard in MY room..
That is what I was trying to say.
However, I do own several live albums, and many can hit the spot for me when heard in MY room..
I listen to a lot of live albums - a good live recording adds something special that you never get in a studio recording - Off the top of my head I'm thinking of Neil Young - Rust never sleeps, Hendrix in the West, Sinatra at the Sands etc
steveinspain
20-12-2009, 05:30
..and I'll add the Allman Brothers 'Live at the fillmore east', CSNY '4 way street' and Genesis 'Seconds out' among my favourites..
Haselsh1
20-12-2009, 09:40
..and I'll add the Allman Brothers 'Live at the fillmore east', CSNY '4 way street' and Genesis 'Seconds out' among my favourites..
Ooops... I have Genesis 'Seconds Out' on vinyl...!!!
The phrase "....the suspension of disbelief..." comes to mind when trying to describe a systems' abilities, or otherwise. Does your system enable you to enter the realm of music and forget about 'hifi'? If so, then isn't that something worth the time, trouble and expense?
How this is achieved will be different for each of us as we all have differing expectations and tastes but I find it less than helpful when equipment is described in terms of its' bass or mid or whatever other hi-fi parameter you care to name. Surely it matters not how deep the bass or crystalline the highs if the sound has no musical coherence or merit, if the system is incapable of reproducing the nuances of performance that go to making a believable musical event then all the tonal accuracy, harmonic richness, sound staging abilities are just a waste of time.
The systems that draw you in and surprise and delight will these days, I believe, be those that manage to combine the best attributes of what in the past were often the opposing qualities of performance above all else v. sonic purity above all else.
Regards
'The closest approach to the original sound' might be a good tagline but IMO it is like the mythical questing beast that could be hunted but never caught.
I think we would all agree that changing any component will always result in a different presentation of the music, albeit subtle in many cases. It may not be better or worse, just different. So what is 'accurate' and what is 'the original sound'?
With 100% acoustic recordings I agree that there must be a definitive benchmark for reproduction - with all other types of music there cannot be adefinitive 'original sound'.
When a band lays down tracks in the studio how do they listen to what they have recorded to see if they are happy with it? - Whatever kit they have in the studio. Could be the desk monitors, could be a dedicated playback system - most studios widely diverge here - there is no standard.
At a gig what are we actually listening to? - a big (and more often than not dog-rough sounding) hi-fi.
What's most important for me is not how faithfully we are 'reproducing the original recording' but how 'well' it sounds when reproduced. If your system sounds beautiful and entrancing no matter what is played then you are on the right lines. If you are just hearing air being moved at different (albeit the correct) freqencies then you are going wrong.
Ever been listening to someone elses system when they play you something and ask your opinion on the sound? 'Hmm... sounds a bit rough' you say (trying to sugar coat it:)). 'Ah!', they say 'but that is what that record sounds like' - that is a system that doesn't work.
Haselsh1
20-12-2009, 13:20
I remember years ago going to Sheffield City Hall with a rather tasty young female item to see Thunder. The sound was so bad we listened to the whole gig in the bar where the sound was much better. There's no way I want my Hi-Fi to sound 'live'.
I remember years ago going to Sheffield City Hall with a rather tasty young female item to see Thunder. The sound was so bad we listened to the whole gig in the bar where the sound was much better. There's no way I want my Hi-Fi to sound 'live'.
Live sound doesn't have to be bad but I agree it almost always is. Its just that most PAs are built for endurance rather than sound quality (the really expensive Tannoy rigs being one exception) and most sound engineers listen to music on a Dixon's midi system and have no frame of reference for quality sound.
I did security at a Thunder gig once - they got a lot of 'action' the jammy bas***ds!
Haselsh1
20-12-2009, 13:51
Live sound doesn't have to be bad but I agree it almost always is. Its just that most PAs are built for endurance rather than sound quality (the really expensive Tannoy rigs being one exception) and most sound engineers listen to music on a Dixon's midi system and have no frame of reference for quality sound.
I did security at a Thunder gig once - they got a lot of 'action' the jammy bas***ds!
More action than I did that night. The young bit of kit I was with was married and I do have some standards but the old pork dagger wanted a go.
The Grand Wazoo
24-12-2012, 01:13
From The Grave
Somehow missed this thread when it first came and some excellent reflections about sound.
I guess I want a few things the first id to be emotionally involved in the music for this to happen I need to sense the energy (dynamics) of the music and for it to be realistic enough to have the illusion of the musicians in the room, so the sound has to be believable.
I am extremely lucky that I can either have a bit more presence which gives me a better illusion of the live event or a bit more detailed and tighter. Depending on my mood and the music I am listening I will choose either approach
My system is pretty stealth like close my eyes and I just get a sense of the music being filled in the room, it also has lots of scale and has rock solid rhythms that makes drums and tablas sound realistic.
Every time I hear a system I hear something that slightly unique and think this is due to different rooms and different approaches as to which is right I have no idea I tend to believe we end up with systems based on our preferences and hearing.
Can we achieve the potency of real sound? No, but there are some baselines I do strive for and that give me great satisfaction when listening to music (e.g. studio albums, for which there is no baseline):
1. the system must be dynamically competent and honest. I don't want my sound rounded or warmed up. A brass instrument played close is an incredible thing and can sound quite dirty. I want it to sound that way on my system. Drums need to have attack and not be limp.
2. the system's tonality must be neutral. I know what a live piano sounds like and it's not easy to achieve realism. Remember it's a percussion instrument and the 'strike' has to sound that way.
3. human voice is very important to me. I don't want males to sound plummy or females to sound shrieky. Spoken voice on BBC R4 is a great test of a system's overall competence.
I do try to achieve truth to concert sound for classical music, although it will at its best only be a good attempt. As for live rock sound, that is not a baseline I use since most gigs sound awful.
Do I enjoy the sound my system makes? Definitely, and my focus these days is on buying more music.
Dingdong
24-12-2012, 07:25
I thought high fidelity was just a marketing term. There are no measurements or tolerances that qualify anything to be high fidelity. At what point would something become high fidelity and not medium or low fidelity?
I've always considered that I have a music system. I try to achieve a sound that pleases me.
It's up to you. If you consider your system has a high fidelity to the original sound, then it's hi-fidelity. Harry Pearson calls it the high end. The terminology doesn't matter, and the judgement is purely subjective.
tannoyman
24-12-2012, 09:51
:lol::lol:
Can we achieve the potency of real sound? No, but there are some baselines I do strive for and that give me great satisfaction when listening to music (e.g. studio albums, for which there is no baseline):
1. the system must be dynamically competent and honest. I don't want my sound rounded or warmed up. A brass instrument played close is an incredible thing and can sound quite dirty. I want it to sound that way on my system. Drums need to have attack and not be limp.
2. the system's tonality must be neutral. I know what a live piano sounds like and it's not easy to achieve realism. Remember it's a percussion instrument and the 'strike' has to sound that way.
3. human voice is very important to me. I don't want males to sound plummy or females to sound shrieky. Spoken voice on BBC R4 is a great test of a system's overall competence.
I do try to achieve truth to concert sound for classical music, although it will at its best only be a good attempt. As for live rock sound, that is not a baseline I use since most gigs sound awful.
Do I enjoy the sound my system makes? Definitely, and my focus these days is on buying more music.
Hi Martin
Thank you for a superb contribution to this thread. I totally agree with your thoughts on this but I would a few additional points.
Firstly many hi fi systems tend to exagerate and make sounds larger than life. This a problem because invariably they do not do so consistently. So on certain types of music or records they sound superb but on others they sound awful. One of the main things I look for is evenhandedness - the ability to handle all types of music with grace and make them sound acceptable. I do not not listen to very much rock music but when I do I want it to sound reasonable so I use rock music as part of my change evaluation.
For most of my 44 years as an enthusiast I have had records or sometimes whole swathes of records that I could not listen to. Many people say its the record that's at fault. Some even go as far as to dispose of the offending disc. In my experience it is usually not the record but the system that is at fault. I have had records that which I have owned for years but never played because they sounded absolutely awful. Years later when my system was better sorted I have found the same records to be superb and among the best recordings I own.
I now judge system progess not by its impact on my favourite records but on its effect across my whole collection. This of course takes time. You cannot assess a change in a few minutes it can take weeks before you really know. However when I now come to a conclusion it usually stands the test of time rather than being proved false within a short time. Probably the most important thing I have learned over the years is that whilst we all like to consider ourselves good judges of sound quality (according to our own standards of course) short term memory of sounds is very poor and the ear is easily fooled. This if we are not careful makes us cannon fodder for the many charlatans who swim in the hi fi pond! Caveat emptor has never been more appropriate than in the wonderful world of audio.
PS I am just going to adjust my Peter Belt rings and do my weekly check to make sure than the slots in my crew heads are all aligned to the 12 O'clock position
David :) :)
Some one mentioned further up about the live experience having so many other aspects that trying to reproduce it faithfully would be pointless. To me the visual aspect is critical to this. If you are watching a musician, it almost does not matter where the sound comes from as your brain locates it back to musician. At home, when you are not watching also, if the vocals come from the middle and then the guitar the vocalist is playing comes from the right eight foot away it destroys any sense of reality. Even drums can come from left and right speakers making a drum kit twelve foot wide. I have often wondered why more music is not produced with a more realistic sense of instrument positioning.
tannoyman
24-12-2012, 11:09
I have often wondered why more music is not produced with a more realistic sense of instrument positioning.[/QUOTE]
I think this is about the way it is recorded. If a recording is made in a venue instruments appear (or should appear) in their correct position and size. Many modern recording put individual instruments in cubicles and then mix them together on the mixing desk like making a cake. They spread some instruments on both channels and I think it is this which produces the effect you describe. It can be problematic if like me your speakers are 17' apart!
David :):)
Haselsh1
24-12-2012, 11:15
My own personal quest for fidelity is simply about hearing the music in a way that I find pleasing to my own ears and persona. I do not want any little irritating foibles and negative aspects to my sound so I continuously change my system to suit my ears. It is also important to me to have a very impressive stereo effect so that is high on my list also. One other thing about fidelity is that I do not listen to music just because it is convenient therefore I choose to listen mainly to vinyl and analogue replay. This I find much more pleasing than digital.
Can we achieve the potency of real sound? No, but there are some baselines I do strive for and that give me great satisfaction when listening to music (e.g. studio albums, for which there is no baseline):
1. the system must be dynamically competent and honest. I don't want my sound rounded or warmed up. A brass instrument played close is an incredible thing and can sound quite dirty. I want it to sound that way on my system. Drums need to have attack and not be limp.
2. the system's tonality must be neutral. I know what a live piano sounds like and it's not easy to achieve realism. Remember it's a percussion instrument and the 'strike' has to sound that way.
3. human voice is very important to me. I don't want males to sound plummy or females to sound shrieky. Spoken voice on BBC R4 is a great test of a system's overall competence.
I do try to achieve truth to concert sound for classical music, although it will at its best only be a good attempt. As for live rock sound, that is not a baseline I use since most gigs sound awful.
Do I enjoy the sound my system makes? Definitely, and my focus these days is on buying more music.
the piano is an interesting point , my daughters expensive roland sounds just like a real piano should, but plug some music into the aux and the sound through the inbuilt speakers and amp is very poor. so it seems to me the 'piano' demand on speakers is not that great, i bought a job lot of electric piano and organ speakers a few years ago, they where ok quality wise but nothing to write home about. plug my daughters piano into my amp and the sounds really sound like a real piano with that stike, but with a hint of grain from rolands sound processor.
my idea of a good sound is just as you describe, i think brass is difficult for most systems to reproduce,
i went to see a swing band last week, was treated to a fantastic room full of dynamic sound.
Reproducing music to sound like that is challange to any system, but the closest i've heard is with 'very' high quality pa type kit (more the speakers), and most would not want this of set up their lounge, so the compromises start.
anyway most of us are happy not to want what we cant have.
Thermionic Idler
24-12-2012, 13:48
The late John Culshaw of Decca had a nice phrase which sums it up quite well --- achieving a "theatre of the mind".
tannoyman
24-12-2012, 14:31
The late John Culshaw of Decca had a nice phrase which sums it up quite well --- achieving a "theatre of the mind".
Hi Dave
Superb quote.
David :christmas:
To add, dynamic range is the biggest key to fidelity followed by linearity and phase coherence. Everything else drops into place. There are compromises of course but a pleasing/euphonic sound isn't always the most faithful to either the raw musical performance or the recording thereof.
Yes he is. If he happens upon and wishes to comment on anything written on this thread, he is free to register and contribute accordingly.
Hello Steve
Some good points there.
I will cite you some thoughts that being dealer very often crops up in conversation with customers.
Musical Reality
Is there a definitive answer?
In truth I'm not sure, it renders differently for each person's experiences as to how they feel it holds true from THEIR perspective.
One example for you we have a client who's day job is to conduct a 120 piece orchestra.
He stands just yards away from a full tilt large scale 'natural' 20Kw PA system, 100+ musicians all playing flat out is a pretty nasty sounding (due to the close proximity of Orchestra being only yards away from him) mega dynamic, brash powerful tour do force.
Very few listeners could cope with the sheer brutality of the sound being played at that close a distance.
Without question this is sheer realism for the conductor and orchestra, however if the listener of an audio could genuinely recreate that sound, could you live with it on a long term basis?
The conductor has a very desirable system that most of us would sacrifice a kidney to own.
Yet he "listens" at close to 105dB volume level, stands almost between the speakers "conducting" and this is still NOT enough for him, the only way would be to design a neural interface for him to control the music in real time :D and this is few centuries off yet I feel!
On the flip side, if you removed your electronics from between your speakers and placed a quality singer song writer in their place and asked them to play for you, yes you would have an amazing gig, however the dynamics they could produce would still be too much for 98% of the population due to the sheer dynamic presence they could generate in such a small environment.
We all hanker after reality, yet in reality we settle for our own 'level' of perceptional reality.
What is that really defines reality?
Genuine headroom, unlimited dynamics, tonal purity, sound staging, natural timing, perceptual depth of field, articulation?
Show me a system that can recreate those and I'll take it home with me this afternoon sir :D
We all know PA rigs can go monumentally loud and fill large auditoriums with sheer volume and physical presence with ease (stand up ATC / PMC /Tannoy / JBL / Westrex / et al)
Can they genuinely layer with rich textures and articulate sound, with out any monochromatic traits, produce great listenability at low volumes levels with no back ground noise and still them interest level?
We also know that low powered SET's and high efficiency horn loaded drivers can produce a massive room filling sound with great presence and no harshness with drive and verve.
These can without question give the illusion of 'being there' no one can deny.
Yet to hear one of these set up's produce delicate and correct tonal quality sounds at low volumes or without having a hurricane pouring through the compression loaded drivers as 96dB plus is superb efficiency however valves are not always quiet are they?
Or produce any real bass below 45hz unless they have a partnering bass augmentation module or cost £
Conversely a high powered solid state with a quality traditional box speaker that is reflex ported can certainly give big dynamics, great depth of bass, openness and detail.
However they can demonstrate a 'grain' in the upper frequencies, a relentlessness to the sound or have a room mode exciting ability second to none.
We can discuss room correction in the digital domain, which indeed does generate desired results in taming room issues and giving superb sound staging. Yet with a sense of mechanical contrivance of they sound being place there, AOS members could use the term 'soul less'
Now in truth reality encompasses a great many of the elements we have touch on.
So a combination of ingredients that is right for each individual will be the answer.
If you imagine a scale of 1 -10, one being Jazz cats, smooth niceeee,
think Horlicks malt drink laced with mogadon.
Not a harsh note anywhere, total; relaxation, smooth and genteel, if you put on Ed Sherrin (God forbid) he would be playing at 1/4 speed while doped up on skunk, totally in offensive
1 being a pair of Quad 57's Quad 11 amplifiers all played through either a stock Meridian 508.24 player of Michele Orb with a RB 300 and a Audio note I/O cartridge
10 Being total sheer scale, dynamics, presence and the ability to shatter your vertebrae against the wall with the force available from the cones of the Wilson Alexandria XLF, 3Kw's worth of Dartzeel mono blocks, Wadia 9 series digital front end and Continuum TT
This could replicate a Motorhead anniversary no sleep till Hammersmith tour concert only with more aplomb and slightly less ear damage.
No lack in dynamic transients, realistic depth or the ability to keep you captivated for the track you are listening to.
Which one is closest to reality?
Simple the one which you feel comfortable with and can live with on a long term prospect.
Most music lovers in the UK are somewhere between a 3 and a 5, the odd one of two venture up higher, I suspect Martin T is a 6.5 and John the master of tunes a 7
Alan S around the 3 mark, an age old question to one I feel the answer is what ever you feel is correct in your reference zone.
Just to wrap up in those infamous lines form Spinal Tap,
"why does your amplifier have 11 on it?"
"Because its one higher than 10"
Mines starts at 11 :lol:
Some great points there, Tony, in your 'stream of consciousness'. Much to think about, and perhaps rating me a 6.5 on your scale is not far off reality actually.
Very interesting post Tony and totally agree its about what you enjoy in terms of resolution
Wakefield Turntables
25-12-2012, 21:08
great thread. I'm at peace with my system, it does what I need it to do. Occasionally I may trial a piece of kit which improves my system. The last thing being a Ortofon ST80 SUT. I have never bothered to try and reproduce a live performance. To me if the music makes me feel great then its doing its job. i have a very forensic system as I have stated previously, but thats my nature:)
With regard to live sound, nothing put down on record is ever the sound of 'live' - at best it is the sound of two microphones being hit with the sound going through a particular place in a room. Ears are different to microphones and of course we 'hear' or at least experience sound with our whole bodies.
Then, the microphones are rarely anywhere where we could naturally place ourselves at the gig.
Most people do seem to mention comparing music to live and it's just a daft notion in my view, one kind of steeped in an idealism or even a slight poncy notion.
Of course, the sound 'event' we create at home is then something we respond to live.
However, there are aspects of sound that often you only get from direct sound from an object unless you choose your system well. Even the difference between a reflected live sound and a direct live sound can be distinct - a sight dulling of top end and lessening of dynamics. Hearing a helicopter direct or instead reflected off the buildings around you (when it's out of sight) is a great example.
For me, those aspects of live sound are speed of attack, detail within the sound (call that tonal richness perhaps - a feeling of infinite depth to a sound), full range and a wide and deep soundstage - off the top of my head at least.
Because those things are quite hard to achieve satisfactorily, they stand out for me when I do come closer - so I then I end up striving toward that I guess.
This doesn't mean I want to listen loudly - quite the opposite. I want this at low levels really and that also helps with less blurring from the room acoustics.
One thing that is often ignored is background noise level - quite important for detail and soundstage I think, yet anyone with a road nearby is never likely to achieve a silent, unobtrusive background.
I like to think of an album as a piece of art, lovingly created piece by piece by the artists.
You can't second guess what their intended sound is so you really need to just go for a sound that appears, to your best judgment, to be as clear a window into the sound as possible. I find that a system that can play all types of music/sound equally well as being more towards the ideal.
Most people do seem to mention comparing music to live and it's just a daft notion in my view, one kind of steeped in an idealism or even a slight poncy notion.
What a strange statement to make, Nat. If you don't ever hear live acoustic instruments, how can you judge whether your system is doing a great job? Get that right, and EVERYTHING sounds better because your system is showing greater fidelity, and that's what it's all about.
The Grand Wazoo
26-12-2012, 11:26
I find it strange too, but what I'm most interested in is for Nat to explain this bit.
....or even a slight poncy notion
What a strange statement to make, Nat. If you don't ever hear live acoustic instruments, how can you judge whether your system is doing a great job? Get that right, and EVERYTHING sounds better because your system is showing greater fidelity, and that's what it's all about.
That's what I said too... I talked about aspects of direct sounds from things for example, and trying to create those sounds through a system ..
You're mixing up the words refering to a live gig with 'live' meaning any sound in real life. This thread has been about live gigs and concerts. I mean 'live' in the same context as throughout the thread..
It has already been said in this thread many times - and people have agreed - that there is much more to a live gig than just the sound and often that sound can be terrible. Yet despite that, people love those terrible sounding gigs and have large emotional responses to those memories due to the crowd, due to visuals, due to the meaning of a song, due to what was going on in your life at the time, due to how you might have seen the performers as gods etc etc.
Once you understand that a system can only create sound, then it's a daft notion to strive to re-create the FEELING that you felt when you were there, one that was not induced by sound alone.
You've already agreed with others saying roughly the same thing, I think.
I find it strange too, but what I'm most interested in is for Nat to explain this bit.
:lol:
Given the above, you find people really getting wrapped up in that feeling/emotion of a live gig experience when talking about their system and what they are trying to achieve. When people are like that, they CAN come across as self absorbed, lost in their memories and emotions and un-able to realise that what they are responding to is all internal and personal - memory triggers from within - and not their system in isolation. Too much of that becomes pretentious / poncy.
Also, you find many inexperienced hifi newbes talking about 'that live sound' or whatever and you can tell they're just spouting words to try to sound like they know more than they really do, to get people to listen to their inexperienced opinions.
That's what I said too... I talked about aspects of direct sounds from things for example, and trying to create those sounds through a system ..
You're mixing up the words refering to a live gig with 'live' meaning any sound in real life. This thread has been about live gigs and concerts. I mean 'live' in the same context as throughout the thread..
Ah, ok, I think I'm with you now, Nat. When I talk about reproducing the sound of a live 'gig' I'm really referring to acoustic instruments, so classical concerts and intimate jazz sessions mainly. I certainly don't seek to emulate anything about live rock concerts, the sound of which I do not wish to reproduce at home. They are a separate experience; rather like going to see an F1 race, you enjoy the atmosphere and the 'being there' but you need to go home and watch the race on TV to get a full appreciation of what happened!
That probably explains why I generally prefer studio albums to live albums: it's the performer's creative process I enjoy listening to.
As for ensuring my system is on the right track, I try to get human voice, piano, trumpet and violin sounding realistic. If it does those well, it should do most things well.
There certain aspects of a rock gig I like to try and reproduce like the sense of scale and the and having it loud enough to feel the music in my body, also part of my system is get a sense of the timbre and sound of the instruments being played of course their a lot more. I like my system to be able to give a real sense of the rhythm both in the sense of underlying the music and also that sense of drive, getting both is a difficult act to achieve. So in other words I am hearing the bass fully extending/underling the drums and getting the drive of the drums
I do not believe there is a ultimate right way as we all set up systems based on our own preferences, and each room is a unique environment.
tannoyman
27-12-2012, 20:45
:lol:
Also, you find many inexperienced hifi newbes talking about 'that live sound' or whatever and you can tell they're just spouting words to try to sound like they know more than they really do, to get people to listen to their inexperienced opinions.
Hi Chris
It's called bovine excrement and there's a lot of it about. I of course only talk perfect sense! (hmmm)
david:lol::cool:
That probably explains why I generally prefer studio albums to live albums: it's the performer's creative process I enjoy listening to.
As for ensuring my system is on the right track, I try to get human voice, piano, trumpet and violin sounding realistic. If it does those well, it should do most things well.
Me too and for the same reason - live albums can be good of course but normally for the different versions of songs or improvisations.
I'm never quite sure about comparing certain instruments as a whole to judge my system by as I never know how things are recorded or using what or if a certain 'sound' has been engineered or close-mic'd instruments been eq'd to fit them in bette with each other (and the gear used to do that might be softening transients etc). It's interesting if you DO know, as you can try to hear that too.
Then if it's a simple two mic recording, I don't know how the piano, say, has been positioned in the room and has the bite of the piano been lost by the placement or by the room/hall acoustic etc etc?
In some ways, unnaturallly close mic'd instruments show off more of what your system is capable of but then the music itself needs to be minimalist so you can hear it. For me, the kind of sounds I enjoy are when you get the oportunity to stick your ear right near a live instrument, like your head in the lid of the piano or
really close to a cymbol or bagpipes (did that today - some chap playing outside a pub for a wedding reception - love the sound of close, live bagpipes and the crispness of the sound).
So a longer listen of everything should hopefully let you realise certain aspects of sound ARE being re-created at some point by your system, and if they are missing on some recordings, perhaps that's down to the recording then.
I guess I just listen generally with a wide-ish range of natural sounds, acoustic instruments, sythesised and electrified too and take a mental note of how often I'm impressed by things I hear and hope it's because they sound real. A very laid back process!
Hi Chris
It's called bovine excrement and there's a lot of it about. I of course only talk perfect sense! (hmmm)
david:lol::cool:
Me too! Perfect sense all the time...
I guess I just listen generally with a wide-ish range of natural sounds, acoustic instruments, sythesised and electrified too and take a mental note of how often I'm impressed by things I hear and hope it's because they sound real. A very laid back process!
That pretty much describes my process also. When you get a lot of 'wow listen to that!' moments you know you are on the right track.
Annoying though when you hear one pair of speakers make you go wow at one thing, and another pair wow at another, but never the two things happen on the same speaker..
What do you do then? Spose have to keep trying more till you do, or constantly swap speakers...
I'm doing that with some AE AE2 Pros and JAS Oriors - the bite of the AE2s are adictive and actually a bit more natural, whist sounding a little dark. The Oriors nice and airy and open sounding .. which I miss.
BTH K10A
30-12-2012, 01:00
For those striving to achieve the realistic sound of live rock music this may be of some help
http://www.davethebass.com/pa.htm
:lol::lol::lol:
awkwardbydesign
21-07-2014, 12:51
OK, I'll stick my head above the parapet. I think we've backed ourselves into a corner with the "High Fidelity" tag. It should be renamed, audio would do, or as I call mine, a "stereo". We all seem to want different things, so define hifi in different ways. I actually prefer live recordings, as I want "the closest approach to the original MAGIC". If the original SOUND was crap, why would I want that? Some records are technically lousy but sound magic, frequently (but not exclusively) live recordings. And our ears are all different, our cultural and experiential (is that a word?) preferences are different, etc.
How can we agree on "fidelity" when we mean different things by the word? The measurists demand to be able to SEE how accurate the reproduction is (I've never understood that. Would you define a great wine that way, for example?), while the pure subjectivists consider measurements to be irrelevant.
At the moment I am using an old pair of Mordaunt Short Carnival 3s while I try to finish the big speakers. The tweeters are those cheap £5 (back in the day) plastic Audax things. A bit primitive and there is no bass to speak of, but I'm really enjoying my new CDs (Fink and Tinariwen). The midrange is pretty good, actually. I'm not expecting "high fidelity", but I have adjusted my expectations accordingly, and knowing they are temporary I'm just enjoying. When the big speakers are finished I will expect far more from them, and if they don't deliver, well then, you could say the Carnivals are better spesakers!
So, change the name, unless you are in the recording business (and even there pop is monitored on little "transistor radio" speakers), and stop obsessing over a misnomer.
Discuss. :lol:
It's not about getting hi-fidelity to the performance it is about getting high fidelity to the recording of the performance. A subtlety that many seem to miss.
The Barbarian
21-07-2014, 13:39
Too many cuckoo's searching for something that aint there. Why not just buy a stereo stop farting about & just use it for what it was intended for. Some of the stereo's that people have, that i have heard i really feel sorry for them because if that is their idea of Audio nirvana they need a doctor immediately.
:D
It's not about getting hi-fidelity to the performance it is about getting high fidelity to the recording of the performance. A subtlety that many seem to miss.
Quite.
....and without the use of tone controls. Lol, Andre, soz, couldn't resist!! :D
;)
Marco.
In my case the answer to the second question in the thread title is; music reproduction which sounds good, to me. I arrived at this point recently, or at the very least have got incredibly close to it. Each of us has our own preferences however which is why I enjoy reading about other members experiences ;)
The Barbarian
21-07-2014, 13:49
My beef with the Tone control less malarky is it is one of those things that Audio cracked pots have got in their heads that they must not have them 'Is is against all Audio purist stand for' it is no different from judging a piece of equipment by it's specifications imho. I am one of those that will always go against what is suppose to be De rigueur & ofc again ive had enough tone control less amps to safely say not a single one sounded any good to my lugholes.
tone controls or a graphic equaliser it doesn't matter, they are both perfectly valid in terms of reproducing to the highest fidelity because that means getting the frequency response balance right as well as a whole host of other things.
I've never found the 'purist' concept that they ruin the sound to be true.
Ali Tait
21-07-2014, 14:02
Too many cuckoo's searching for something that aint there. Why not just buy a stereo stop farting about & just use it for what it was intended for. Some of the stereo's that people have, that i have heard i really feel sorry for them because if that is their idea of Audio nirvana they need a doctor immediately.
:D
:lol:
awkwardbydesign
21-07-2014, 16:02
It's not about getting hi-fidelity to the performance it is about getting high fidelity to the recording of the performance. A subtlety that many seem to miss.
And that, I think, is the problem. Chasing an impossibility. Not a subtlety! And what is the point of the recording anyway? Capturing the performance, otherwise it's just an exercise in sterility.
tone controls or a graphic equaliser it doesn't matter, they are both perfectly valid in terms of reproducing to the highest fidelity because that means getting the frequency response balance right as well as a whole host of other things.
I've never found the 'purist' concept that they ruin the sound to be true.
Soz, bro - gotta disagree, as my experience is somewhat contrary to that. 'Ruin' the sound, no, but to my lugholes they most certainly add large amounts of audible distortion.
Quality rant, btw, Andre! :D
Marco.
Yeah, I have to say that analogue tone controls don't do it for me either. On those amps that allow the tone controls to be bypassed they have always sounded better to me when they are switched out of circuit. Even on those recordings that may benefit I find them too much of a blunt tool.
istari_knight
21-07-2014, 18:47
I've never found the 'purist' concept that they ruin the sound to be true.
+1
I can well imagine it...
If we market it just right & get everyone to believe they ruin the sound not only will that put punters off far eastern amps giving us more market but ours will be cheaper to produce = win/win :eyebrows:
Who started it anyway ?
What you have to be careful of, when making these sorts of assessments, is that you're comparing like with like.
Just because one amp (with tone controls) sounds better to you than another without, isn't necessarily because of the effectiveness (or otherwise) of the tone controls, but perhaps that, through design, despite the effect of the tone controls, overall it's simply a better amp! ;)
Marco.
The JVC AX-A3 I have here has a CD Direct function which bypasses everything bar the volume control. With it in circuit there is a marked improvement in clarity, consequently I only ever use the CD input. I've no time for extraneous controls at all and have always preferred amps with just a volume control and source selector, the exception being the Classé DR5 pre-amp I previously owned where the same controls could be defeated at the flick of a switch. Needless to say they were never in circuit.
istari_knight
21-07-2014, 19:42
What you have to be careful of, when making these sorts of assessments, is that you're comparing like with like.
Just because one amp (with tone controls) sounds better to you than another without, isn't necessarily because of the effectiveness (or otherwise) of the tone controls, but perhaps that, through design, despite the effect of the tone controls, overall it's simply a better amp! ;)
Marco.
+1. Not all tone control circuits are born equal, implementation is everything. In a well designed amp I would challenge anyone to tell the difference blind - Its astonishing how huge differences suddenly disappear. I have tried it myself with cables, dacs & tone controls and could detect exactly zero difference... Anyone that claims they can hear the difference yet have never put it to the test really ought to.
no harm in having them as long as they can be bypassed if you want to.....sometimes I used them when available, depending on what I was listening to...if it sounded better the so be it.
The Barbarian
26-07-2014, 11:02
Yep but when every single Tone control less amp i ever owned all sounded cack to my earholes there has gotta be something wrong aint there?
However it is it not so hard to see why people turn into box swappers more often then they care to realise!
awkwardbydesign
26-07-2014, 11:13
Yep but when every single Tone control less amp i ever owned all sounded cack to my earholes there has gotta be something wrong aint there?
However it is it not so hard to see why people turn into box swappers more often then they care to realise!
Is it your earholes? :eyebrows:
The Barbarian
26-07-2014, 13:03
Certainly is not my hearholes they are golden as the golden of golden things
Yep but when every single Tone control less amp i ever owned all sounded cack to my earholes there has gotta be something wrong aint there?
...aye, you've never heard a decent amp without tone controls yet! :lol:
Marco.
prestonchipfryer
26-07-2014, 13:51
I always see tone controls as ''worry knobs.'' I.e.: Does this track need more or less bass, mid, treble. Would drive me mad having tone controls as I would always be wondering where to set them. :eyebrows:
The Barbarian
26-07-2014, 14:00
...aye, you've never heard a decent amp without tone controls yet! :lol:
Marco.
O i have
;)
So they exist, then? :eyebrows:
Here's one... Sondex 'S230'. Woo-hoo, look - no tone controls:
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/538/osBaHL.jpg
...and I *know* you don't think that sounds cack! ;)
:ner:
Marco.
Well, it's the Carnival here this weekend and I've had the pleasure of listening to a proper brass band close-up, together with a samba band which stunned me in all honesty. I think I can fairly say that NO domestic Hifi comes close when playing compressed and 'mixed up' commercial material masquerading as 'music!' One or two of the biggest pro studio setups might come close though in terms of dynamic range if it's there in the master material, but these manufacturer forums with their bosses loudly stating how amazing and superior their little active boxes with 5 or 6" main drivers are, just completely miss the point IMO, even though modern houses have tiny rooms unable to accommodate proper big loudspeakers. I don't care how long these little drivers' travel is, or how low the midrange distortion can be, they just CAN'T move enough air IMO! And no, I don't call my old stereo's 'HiFi' by modern standards!
...even though modern houses have tiny rooms unable to accommodate proper big loudspeakers.
Simple answer, glasshoppa: don't live in modern houses with pish rooms in them for a hi-fi! ;)
I don't care how long these little drivers' travel is, or how low the midrange distortion can be, they just CAN'T move enough air IMO!
Too right, daddy-o! That, however, won't stop the 'Dodgy Duo' from lying about the capabilities of their ridiculous little speaker-ettes, in order to further their best commercial interests! :wanker:
Marco.
I can appreciate people having to use small speakers due to space or WAF or even MAF (although I find MAF the hardest to comprehend) but don't insult me by trying to convince me they are somehow better than a good big 'un. 'Cause they're not.
Remind me again what 'MAF' is :)
For me, there's no excuse for WAF, provided that you've married someone who's on the same 'wavelength' as you... I mean, just WHY wouldn't that be so?? After all, I believe you get a choice! ;)
Marco.
Lol - you're on record, though, here as rating them. In any case, you give almost everything away eventually! ;)
Marco.
MAF - Metrosexual Appreciation Factor
I.e Blokes who are so concerned about what the interior of their homes look like that they are prepared to sacrifice SQ in order to keep it all looking 'nice'.
Don't get me wrong I like good interior design and if I had money to burn on it I would have it all looking pretty plush. But there would be no compromise on the system no matter how ugly or intrusive it is.
WAF is a different and more complex matter. Yes, ideally, as with the house, the wife should be chosen with the system in mind. But as with the house choice a lot of different boxes need to be ticked and her tolerance for having her living room looking like a downmarket recording studio may be a box too far in some cases. I can understand that. However no problem is without a solution so maybe a separate thread is in order...
MAF - Metrosexual Appreciation Factor
I.e Blokes who are so concerned about what the interior of their homes look like that they are prepared to sacrifice SQ in order to keep it all looking 'nice'.
Don't get me wrong I like good interior design and if I had money to burn on it I would have it all looking pretty plush. But there would be no compromise on the system no matter how ugly or intrusive it is.
WAF is a different and more complex matter. Yes, ideally, as with the house, the wife should be chosen with the system in mind. But as with the house choice a lot of different boxes need to be ticked and her tolerance for having her living room looking like a downmarket recording studio may be a box too far in some cases. I can understand that. However no problem is without a solution so maybe a separate thread is in order...
Sure, but why is it automatically "her" living room, and not jointly his & hers? That's the relationship I enjoy with Del. Remind me of the definition of the word 'marriage' - and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it involves the union of TWO people...? ;)
What you're referring to sounds more like a dictatorship than a marriage, unless you're a pussy and enjoy being under the thumb, or worse, simply want a replacement for your mother!! :doh:
Marco.
Is it not strange that it's always the blokes that were into specialist Hi-Fi in the late 70's/early 80's that are the ones that bind on abart no tone controls. It's almost like they have been conditioned
Not me, dude. I dislike tone controls because I can hear the distortion that they cause. I don't use 'em because I don't need 'em - simples! :)
Marco.
They would never admit it if a Tone controlled amp floored there's
;)
LOL... Do you think YOU would admit it, dude, if it were t'other way round? :eek:
Answer: nar chance :nono:
:lolsign:
Marco.
mr sneff
26-07-2014, 16:32
Y
One being i personally have no place in this hobby as a music lover because i cannot listen to my music now
Don't understand why you can't listen to your music now, Andre.
If it's just about enjoying music then the system, with or without tone controls, is just a means to an end and not a fetish.
mr sneff
26-07-2014, 16:33
Y
One being i personally have no place in this hobby as a music lover because i cannot listen to my music now
Don't understand why you can't listen to your music now, Andre.
If it's just about enjoying music then the system, with or without tone controls, is just a means to an end and not a fetish.
The Barbarian
26-07-2014, 16:51
& that is my last post on AOS
istari_knight
26-07-2014, 17:10
& that is my last post on AOS
Seems a shame to quit posting over something so minor Andr'e ? Hopefully you'll come back after cooling off :cool:
mr sneff
26-07-2014, 17:55
Seems a shame to quit posting over something so minor Andr'e ? Hopefully you'll come back after cooling off :cool:
Agreed, I always find Andre's posts an interesting and entertaining read.
Canetoad
26-07-2014, 21:52
& that is my last post on AOS
Again! Come on Andre, We all like having you around. :)
walpurgis
26-07-2014, 22:18
Yes, don't abandon us Andr'e. We like your input and you're an important part of AOS! :)
I've never found tone controls to be of much use: the Baxandall design of tone controls is too crude to be effective, and the range of 'cut' and 'boost' far too large (as much as +/- 12dB). Most of the preamplifiers I have used have a tone control "defeat" switch, whereby the tone control circuit is bypassed, and these days the pramplifiers I use are devoid of such controls.
The only tone control circuit design I have found to be useful (on the rare occasion), is the "Tilt" feature of the Quad 44 (and later designs). With this control, the whole frequency spectrum can be tilted about 1KHz either up or down by +/- 1, 2 or 3dB. The latter is too much, but I have found tilting the response up by +1dB can help with rather "thick" - sounding recordings. Not a panacea by any means, but occasionally useful.
Wakefield Turntables
29-07-2014, 21:43
Yes, don't abandon us Andr'e. We like your input and you're an important part of AOS! :)
He will be back! Just give him time.
Beobloke
30-07-2014, 08:33
He will be back! Just give him time.
True. I think his latest departure was about due anyway...
Ammonite Audio
30-07-2014, 09:50
I've never found tone controls to be of much use: the Baxandall design of tone controls is too crude to be effective, and the range of 'cut' and 'boost' far too large (as much as +/- 12dB). Most of the preamplifiers I have used have a tone control "defeat" switch, whereby the tone control circuit is bypassed, and these days the pramplifiers I use are devoid of such controls.
The only tone control circuit design I have found to be useful (on the rare occasion), is the "Tilt" feature of the Quad 44 (and later designs). With this control, the whole frequency spectrum can be tilted about 1KHz either up or down by +/- 1, 2 or 3dB. The latter is too much, but I have found tilting the response up by +1dB can help with rather "thick" - sounding recordings. Not a panacea by any means, but occasionally useful.
My Quad 34 has 'bass lift' and 'tilt' controls, but I always prefer them both to be set flat (that's with Avalon NP2.0 speakers).
My Quad 34 has 'bass lift' and 'tilt' controls, but I always prefer them both to be set flat (that's with Avalon NP2.0 speakers).
I did say "the Quad 44 (and later designs)". The Quad 34 came after the 44, being a simpler design and having less versatility. The Quad 34 did have an additional +/-3dB setting on the "Tilt" control. This additional +/-3dB setting was added to later versions of the Quad 44. Both preamps had the "Bass lift" and cut (or rather shelf) controls, and again the Quad 34 had an extra position of bass shelf.
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607992048781429380&pid=15.1&P=0 http://uk-pic1.ciao.com/uk/52608392.jpg
Personally, I have never found the need to use the bass lift and cut control, whereas there are a very few recordings where a -/+1dB 'tilt' can be beneficial. One such example is the rather "thick-sounding" 'For the Roses' by Shirley Collins and The Albion Country Band.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FeBGWXa%2BL._SX300_.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.