View Full Version : Sonic Signature
I have often seen people say that when they get a new component or up-grade an existing one "it does not seem to add or subtract anything" which suggests that what they are hearing is to them a purer representation than what they were hearing before.
How do you know?
I have often seen people say that when they get a new component or up-grade an existing one "it does not seem to add or subtract anything" which suggests that what they are hearing is to them a purer representation than what they were hearing before.
How do you know?
Always cracks me up, that one. Unless you were present at the recording session, the only insight you have into the recording is listening to it via one or more different systems. There's no way of knowing what a particular component has added, taken away, or changed.
X swappers can tell it sounds different from the last system they heard it on.
walpurgis
19-03-2017, 10:39
If you hear more detail, more transparency, tighter bass and so on. Has something been added? Or has something been taken away?
X swappers can tell it sounds different from the last system they heard it on.
Different, maybe. Closer to the original? How can they tell, apart from a vague feeing that 'it sounds so good, this must be how it was meant to sound'?
You really want a serious answer to this question? Okay,
1) we are attempting accurate replay of the original recording post mastering, not re-creating the original performance. No need to have been there for any of it.
2) If it sounds good you are on the right track as almost all recordings sound good if the kit isn't cocking them up.
3) All recordings have to sound good not just girl with guitar or bloke playing cello - no exceptions. If so you are on the right track. If not and only some recordings sound good that is because the kit is faking it by adding 'sonic signature'. All kit has sonic signature, especially speakers, we can't get away from that but the less signature the more likely all recordings will sound good.
4) 'Sounds good' does not mean you decided you liked it. If you have to analyse then it isn't that good. You know good when you hear it. No thinking needed.
It is all subjective though isn't it?
It's only subjective around the edges.
walpurgis
19-03-2017, 13:11
It is all subjective though isn't it?
Even objectivism is open to interpretation, making it all subjective. :lol:
I posted this thread because I got one of the 6J1 pre-amps yesterday and tbh I think it is brilliant. I think it makes music sound more how I want it to sound, dynamic but not harsh or forced. Someone else will probably disagree - something that would not bother me in the least - we all hear differently and have different perceptions of what sounds right.
Could one say that everyone is right?
Presentation is subjective, the sound quality isn't. The sound quality is quantifiable: the amount of noise and distortion added by the system.
Presentation is what we argue about 'I don't like electrostatics', 'I like valves better', I like to listen near field' 'I don't like metal domes' and so forth.
RothwellAudio
19-03-2017, 17:58
Unless you were present at the recording session, the only insight you have into the recording is listening to it via one or more different systems. There's no way of knowing what a particular component has added, taken away, or changed.
For the majority of music bought today there never was "a recording session", or at least there never was a complete band performance recorded in a single take. Even if there was, it's irrelevant anyway.
If you can hear two instruments playing in unison where before you thought there was only one, or you can hear three voices doing harmony vocals were before you could just hear "some" harmony vocals, then the new piece of gear is more transparent than the old. However, it gets complicated by the fact that our brains have the ability to learn. Having heard the new details revealed by the new kit, you will still hear the new details when you switch back to the old kit because your brain has learned what to listen for.
On the best systems you don't need to listen for anything it is just there.
Firebottle
19-03-2017, 18:21
I find better kit gives greater clarity, once you've heard it you don't want to go back.
That's when you hear the new things that you haven't before, the multiple harmonies etc.
For the majority of music bought today there never was "a recording session", or at least there never was a complete band performance recorded in a single take. Even if there was, it's irrelevant anyway.
If you can hear two instruments playing in unison where before you thought there was only one, or you can hear three voices doing harmony vocals were before you could just hear "some" harmony vocals, then the new piece of gear is more transparent than the old. However, it gets complicated by the fact that our brains have the ability to learn. Having heard the new details revealed by the new kit, you will still hear the new details when you switch back to the old kit because your brain has learned what to listen for.
Very interesting Andrew.
Even objectivism is open to interpretation, making it all subjective. :lol:
How very Zen!!!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It is funny and seemingly contradictory that a perception of an objective event, (objectivity is perceiving that which is outside the self), is done by individuals' perception, which makes it subjective.
I think it true that when we have a system change and then hear more, especially if it is generally so with much of our listening on many bits of material, it has been shown to be more transparent to the source.
This is not necessarily so if it applies to only a narrow frequency band or to only a few recordings, where it could be due to an emphasis of a particular band or some other anomaly.
Recently I have noticed errors on what I had regarded as exemplary recordings, in one case several things in different bands previously inaudible. In a way this spoils it because it draws me into technical analysis mode.
Another phenomenon is that often when listening to artists, they get on my nerves more, and I realise that it is because I am hearing more of the real nature of the artist, and I cannot bear him, this especially true on radio.
A good pair of 'phones will expose what is going on HD 650 for eg.
It is funny and seemingly contradictory that a perception of an objective event, (objectivity is perceiving that which is outside the self), is done by individuals' perceptions, which makes it subjective.
I think it true that when we have a system change and then hear more, especially if it is generally so with much of our listening on many bits of material, it has been shown to be more transparent to the source.
This is not necessarily so if it applies to only a narrow frequency band or to only a few recordings, where it could be due to an emphasis of a particular band or some other anomaly.
Recently I have noticed errors on what I had regarded as exemplary recordings, in one case several things in different bands previously inaudible. In a way this spoils it because it draws me into technical analysis mode.
Another phenomenon is that often when listening to artists, they get on my nerves more, and I realise that it is because I am hearing more of the real nature of the artist, and I cannot bear him, this especially true on radio.
A good pair of 'phones will expose what is going on HD 650 for eg.
RothwellAudio
20-03-2017, 10:07
On the best systems you don't need to listen for anything it is just there.
In my opinion you always have to actively listen. When you're on stage it's all "just there" because there is no reproduction system getting in the way, but you still need to actively listen. You'd be amazed how many people don't listen. They're not nice to play with.
In my opinion you always have to actively listen. When you're on stage it's all "just there" because there is no reproduction system getting in the way, but you still need to actively listen. You'd be amazed how many people don't listen. They're not nice to play with.
Playing in a band isn't really the same thing though, it is an active as opposed to passive activity and is quite demanding (unless you're just covering Quo tunes).
Obviously you would need to listen - perhaps what I should have said is that on a very good system there is no need to concentrate or pay special attention in order to hear everything there is to hear.
jandl100
20-03-2017, 12:46
I have often seen people say that when they get a new component or up-grade an existing one "it does not seem to add or subtract anything" which suggests that what they are hearing is to them a purer representation than what they were hearing before.
How do you know?
When people say things like "it does not seem to add or subtract anything" or, one of my bugbears, "it extracts every last bit of detail".
Well, you know that they haven't a clue what they are talking about and need to listen to a wider variety of gear. ;)
I have had experiences where I felt the usual artifacts I associate with components were dramatically reduced or removed, so a sound more like a component being taken out of the chain rather than a new signature. I suppose this is just really increased transparency.
Dynamics
17-04-2017, 13:38
With regard to the original question I'd say everything adds or detracts because everything in hi fi is different.
hifinutt
17-04-2017, 13:44
got a beautiful hi end pre amp at the moment [grandinote] . its as beautiful as my pre modwright dm
but it has a different sonic signature . mine is slightly fuller in the midrange and the one i have on demo is more extended at bottom end . they both sound absolutely delightful but a very different signature
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.