Fidelity to what? Or what are we tying to achieve with all our expensive gear?

:lol::lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinT

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.

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 :):)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinT

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.

The late John Culshaw of Decca had a nice phrase which sums it up quite well --- achieving a "theatre of the mind".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thermionic Idler

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Toy

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