too bad decooney's thread has been 'jacked'
well, there were some pretty useful and interesting comments early on...
Describe the "new HiFi sound"?
Recently had a discussion with an audio friend over the word "musical" and what this word means to each of us with regard to sound from different amplifiers and speakers. Some debate too. And, reading this other comment on Agon once in a while...how some equipment has the "new HiFi sound".
ASK:
Can someone describe this, in your words, what is the new HiFi Sound to you? Examples? Or, opposites of the new HiFi sound, what does this sound like?
151 responses Add your response
It’s annoying and it’s obvious you never owned a truly great 2 channel system. In a thread about "new hifi" you wanna diss me about old hifi? What makes you think that my current setup for two channel is not "truly great"? It measures great, it sounds great, the room is setup great, and this is the best you can do to defend two channel is go to the playground of "mine is better than yours"? OK, here is the "secret sauce" to great two channel. It ain’t the speakers, the electronics, or the cables, it’s the room. When you are "limited" to only two channels it is like crutches. Stereo was designed for three speakers, not two. Not having a center channel is what cripples the room forcing you to sit in a "sweet spot", while the other spots are mediocre or just plain suck. Spending $$$ on gear can’t fix that BUT room treatments can make it a whole lot better. The "secret sauce" is in treating the room and especially treating the ceiling. See the pics in my virtual system to "see" what I mean.
|
Nice pics! All kinds of super nice 2ch stereo gear, amps, and stereo speakers. Would love to have a nice dedicated stereo listening room to test a bunch of different stereo gear like that. The Acoustic Recipe is to sit and listen. Minimal room treatment, very nice @jjss49 that’s what I wanna do when I grow up. Super Duper Stereo room that is, very cool. Just gotta love it! 👍 |
| Post removed |
So I spent some time today on my two channel setup. Got some nice Transparent cables running from my Sony Signature TAZH1ES dac/pre and used it as a dedicated preamp, bypassing my Marantz processor. My Paradigm active speakers have both RCA and XLR inputs so I hooked the pre to the RCA. I use a toggle switch to choose the input I want to use. The Signature line was years in development and represents Sony’s flagship products. Next I recalibrated my Paradigm Link streamer ARC room correction with my PC and that took 20 min. Got it dialed in perfectly for my preferred curve. Then I must have played music of various genre for the next two hours. The Sony has features that let you upscale audio to hirez (DSEE) or remaster files in DSD using the proprietary FPGA DAC. Totally geeked out with the settings. This setup is unbelievably clear, it unleashes whatever your speakers are capable of reproducing. Guess what? It is just like the audio shows, 2 channels shines with acoustic music and female vocals where the music is presented as coming from in front of you. Rock, big band, pop, orchestral music is more dynamic and unnatural in this fashion. In my immersive setup the center channel makes the soundstage better so you can move around and not need a sweetspot. You have 0 localization of speakers, the walls become speakers and that is more of what I experience at a concert hall. So, I still prefer having both options. |
@kota1 good experiment. Sounds like fun. Gotta ask. Have you ever heard a dedicated 2-channel HiFi system with no software involved, no pre-processing, non-oversampling (NOS) dedicated DAC, dedicated preamplifier, paired with dedicated class-A amplifiers, and really good passive (non-powered) speakers before? Do you have a reputable Audio Note dealer near you? If so, try to go listen.
|
@decooney , I have owned many two channel systems and still use one for my desktop. I prefer solid state to tubes and have used varios amps and speakers. I have also attended various audio shows. There is nothing that compares to the feeling of having your walls themselves become speakers and the room becoming pressurized like it does when you have 14 active speakers, all individually biamped with internal monoblocks although two channel can get you 50% of the way there on well recorded material. It just requires sooo much effort and tweaking I find it a real PIA compared to just following the Dolby standards on immersive audio room set up and hitting play. Did you see my system on my profile? |
@kota1 no, had not before, and just checked it out, thanks. Nice. You enjoy it and that's what matters. As noted "on well recorded material". Gotcha. I listen to all sorts of different and inferior recordings, so that rules me out for immersive sound. |
Yep. Was born mid-60s, still listen to old rock bands 60s, 70s, and some 80s stuff. My former audiophile days of securing the perfect recordings and remastered tracks just to be able to sit and listen to how things sound - are over. Back to listening to MUSIC again, most any type of average recording. Tube, old Class A solid state, whatever. It all works. Nice not to worry about that any more. Learned all of this from my local audio shop, open 53 years. Been going there for 38 years, no joke. Has all tube, 2-channel systems, total bliss, pure music.
|
There are a lot of topics in this thread! I don’t know what the "new hifi sound" is, but I think it’s worth including the art of recording in any discussion of new sound. Artists, engineers and producers have broadened the palette of sound being recorded. This isn’t as simple as an eq curve; it’s about adding octaves, pitching percussion, playing with phase to create soundstage effects and carving out eq segments to let instruments blend. I’m not judging old or new, but the sound of an old recording like Crosby Stills vs newer recording artists is dramatic and largely due to the recording artistry. We are all creatures of our time, and artists creating good or less good within the given limitations. |
I checked with the dealer re: Audio Note today. I own the Sony "Signature" preamp which I would be replacing as my two channel preamp. I asked about the Audio Note "Signature" preamp, the M10, it costs over $100K☹ Do you know why you need to spend $100K+ on a two channel system? That is what it costs to make it sound decent. For the same amount of money you could buy an entire SOA immersive audio system, a projector, a screen, and room treatments. Did you buy one? |
Hey @kota1 I did not mean to confuse Was referring to the lower priced AN gear, and the idea of visiting a friendly dealer to just go for a fun demo listen. Did not mean to imply to go buy it. No, I don’t own any of the higher $ AN units. There are some lower priced units, some nice used stuff out there in the under $5-10k range used. Nope, I don’t own any of that higher priced AN gear. A friendly local dealer I’ve bought other gear from has listening sessions, and I sometimes look at and listen to some of the trade-up gear. If you get a chance, it’s fun to go listen to some of the low watt gear, efficient speakers, etc. I did drool over the Audio Note Meishu Tonmeister Phono integrated amplifier once, now discontinued. And the AN Ongaku amp is out of the stratosphere for me, but fun to listen to if you get a chance some day. Both a work of art on the inside. Yes, some of the upper line AN gear is ultra expensive, agree. Best of luck. |
What I like about Sony is they bring together all of their resources, they invented the CD with Philips, they invented DSD, you have the TV’s, the PJ’s, the Playstation, Sony Music, Sony Camera, Sony Walkman, Sony Pictures and then they decided to pivot and focus on hirez audio in the 2000’s. The CEO gave the engineering team an open checkbook and said build me the BEST music playback system we can make. They took years in development to get ready and came back with the Sony Signature line. When you have the resources and budget of Sony you can do stuff basically impossible for boutique manufacturers. Audio Note Signature pre= $100K+. The Sony TAZH1ES Signature pre/dac/headphone amp= $2200. Video: As you know the issue with recordings (especially streaming) is the quality and resolution of the file. I see people squabbling about redbook, PCM, hirez, MQA, etc. I like DSD but good luck finding the content you want. Then you have this unit which takes Sony’s DSD creds and Sony Music’s library of hirez PCM and DSD master tapes and they can create something like this: Convert any Source to DSD https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/sony-ta-zh1es.22253/reviews |
| Post removed |
Yeah, betamax was another format war, agreed. When Steva Ballmer (Vista, Bing) was helming Microsoft it was awful, biggest software company in the world couldn’t build squat and lived off renewals instead of innovation. Satya Nadella comes in and they pivot to office 365 and azure cloud services, the Surface tablet, etc. Big improvement. In 2005 Sony changed CEO’s to an American guy who was head of Sony America to become Sony’s top dog, Howard Stringer, and s--- hit the fan. The guy got them back to "kaizen", or pursuit of perfection and eventually went all in on high resolution audio with the Signature line. Kazuo Hirai succeeded him as CEO in 2012 they rolled out Signature in 2016 after 5 years in development. Check out the story here: https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/design/stories/signature_series/ |
I don't know the term 'new HIFI sound' but if I was to explain it. My interpretation is detail without coloration. I'm in my 50s and the stereo's I heard in my younger years was enjoyable. And when I listen to older equipment (for the heck of it I pulled out an Adcom amp and replaced my Moon amp with it) the sound is less dynamic and detailed. Ultimately, I think the reason there's some many options is because we all have different tastes. I hope technology has added the ability to pursue different characteristics. Ultimately music appreciation lies in the beholder - if someone likes it they like it. And if they like it over Apple earpods or Boulder Audio with Wilson speakers does it really matter? |
That about sums it up in the fewest words. This is what the OP was about, initially. After a few decades of messing with caps and cables, and too many different amplifiers and tubes - recently went back to following and learning from a few different amp designers and hardcore techs. Have been revisiting, learning, and understanding voltage/current and associated manual re-biasing of amps opts, or tubes, reconfiguring to full Class-A operation, and how this impacts sound too. Interesting and rewarding. I’ve come to the conclusion I still prefer a type of sound and presentation about half way between the old era of golden sound and the new era of hi-fi sound. Finding the preamp and amp designers who strive to achieve something close to this type of sound has been an interesting journey in itself. Ears and preferences vary. -------------------- Thanks to all for the varied and interesting replies everyone, along with your own interpretations and examples! Its clear people enjoy hunting for the type of sound they prefer most and trying different components to help get there. Keep up the good work - as they say 👍
|
The purpose of hi-end audio is being able to recreate the original music (natural sound). Yes. The music. In 50s and 60s, audio companies tuned the audio equipment with their ears. They made gears for human ears and the music/emotion. Many audio companies were close to make good musical gears. But they stop improvement there some reason in 80s. Nowadays, they make for only sounds, appearance, and specs.
It is the marketing from audio companies. Modern audio companies draw people’s attention from the music to the sound and technology. They don’t mention the music at all. What is the most important in the hi-end audio? It is the music which is in mid-range. While human voice (mid-range) sucks in modern audio, audio companies only talk minor sound characters such as detail, soundstage, sound depth, bass, etc. "all have different tastes." No. People have no choice. They just get used to the sound around them. What people need is a good reference. The best ref is the original music which audio companies don’t want you to know because they can’t produce the music. They want people keep talk about the bass and sound detail. Think what is the most important... Alex/Wavetouch |
In 150 years of audio history, the reproduction audio sound always veiled and un-natural. There have been quad, stereo, and multi ch sounds, etc. However, all sounds still have veiled and un-natural sound. Now here is no veil and close to natural sound. Wavetouch audio sound. WT sound is a true new Hi-Fi sound. Alex/Wavetouch adio |
@mapman I hope your being facetious. |
I was amazed at AXPONA how many salesmen would give a description of the system with statements like "These speakers will really give you clarity and punch" they seemed to not be saying they will BRING OUT the clarity and punch, this distinction is very important because speakers should only be an image of what the recording is supposed to sound like. I got the clear idea that manufactures were trying to give the idea that their system was defining the music, this happened at ever price range. |
@donavabdear You make a very astute point. Did you notice how many JBL type rooms were booming like a 1980’s Panasonic Platinum Series boom-box. With the exception of most ultra high end gear the trend in audio is towards getting noticed or engagement on the lowest level. This might have to do with the Beats headphone generation graduating towards component audio and the boomers thirsting for that last gasp of nostalgia. Truthfully it is very difficult to make a very neutral speaker that is engaging. A perfect example at the show was the Totem Metal V2. This speaker had a sound of nothing a black background but still managed a level of engagement. Driven by Bryston gear only accentuated the neutrality a warmer SS amp could make them a nearly perfect speaker for $17k. Since most audio buyers buy piece by piece a product like the V2 Metal that does not call out for attention is a hard sell. With the current trend and media push of dual subwoofers and questionable room/source correction/altering devices what can we expect from the average(novice) audiophile? |
@dayglow Oh no, I mentioned those speakers several times to people but I called them Title darn I got the name wrong. Yes the Totem’s were wonderful they made the biggest impression on me of any smaller speaker, those Canadian’s can make some great speakers. Your idea about the Beats generation is interesting and I bet exactly right, the question is in a hobby like ours where there are really no rules how influential is improper ideas and social norms that do not tend to push the manufactures toward more accurate sound but simply making money, can’t really blame them. I mentioned earlier how JBL did such a good job a making a "classic" speaker the L100 that I stoped and wondered into their room because I heard my studio life 30 years ago in there. I told that to the salesmen they got such a big kick out of it because that was exactly what JBL was going for, amazing they could be so accurate so many years later.
|
@donavabdear Thx for not taking offense with my nostalgia comment. For myself I don't want to go back to the "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" era. I still enjoy most of the early/mid 1980's pop music but I don't get emotional over it. Your spot on about mainstream brands that have to appease the popular sonic trend. I'm curious about your opinion on the MoFi Source Point 10? For some strange reason I passed the room many times which was not due to arrogance. Maybe fate? |
@dayglow I do remember those speakers I’m embarrassed to say they looked so boxy and cheep I didn’t give them the respect their sound deserved. They did sound good but I was shallow and looking for more interesting speakers. Sorry I didn’t give them a good listen. |
@donavabdear No problem, appreciate the audio banter! I did see the Mo-Fi up close and in a very well lighted Mo-Fi record marketplace area on the main Axpona floor. IMO the cabinet/driver and binding posts look cheaply made. Only a matter of time when Danny Richie(GR Research) takes it apart and sighs! |
| Post removed |
Watched a reviewer last week who reported something about a new tube integrated amp that sounded just like a basic solid state amp. Imagine if we had [new] vinyl records coming out which sounded like early 1980s CDs. Is it new engineers lacking ears -or- possibly no reference to what a musical system can truly sound like? Maybe being true to music is not the goal for some, or simply making more noise pointed at the listener from 8 different directions is "quad" x 2 all over again. Different strokes for different folks. Well people keep on trying stuff to see what sticks, perhaps :) The consumers will decide.
|
Audiophile goes to a concert and says it’s too loud and punchy, overly dynamic and way more bass than is natural. Music lover goes to the same concert and is totally immersed…later decides to get a great stereo system with JBL speakers to re create that experience.
Reality can be upsetting for some people;() |
"Musical" is only a qualitative attribute statement coming from an EXPRESSED subjective experience with a word used to pointed to it as "good experience" ... It is not a logical statement we can described as in a logical analysis as an argument...Except when marketting conditioning ask to us to compare two amplifiers for example.. When i say the soundfield is "musical" i do not refer to a marketing argument about an electronic component compared to an another one, because there is then no OBJECTIVE ACOUSTIC argument in a comparison between isolated components or the different possible coupling with other components IN AN UNCONTROLLED ROOM .. Electronic components and even speakers to be analysed optimally and more objectively must be put out of a living room in an industrial laboratory or in a room acoustically dedicated to them with the right synergetical components coupled with them ...
In acoustic experience saying that a speakers/room is "musical" refer to specific ACOUSTIC conditions and principle which will make by a balance between many OBJECTIVE acoustic and psycho-acoustic factors and their optimal ratio an OPTIMAL "musical" experience for all people and not for only some person taste as the choice between electronic components may be in isolation from each another or coupled in a acoustically UNCONTROLLED room ... "Musical" then become less a mere subjective attribute and more an objective description now by virtue of acoustic mastery of the speakers/room relation by an acoustician or by someone who try his best to control room acoustic... There is "petition of principle" using the term "musicality" only when we spoke of the musicality of one component compared to another TO SELL THEM , but the falsehood here is that what is good for some ears in a living room with specific components will be less good for other ears who will prefer other components in the same living room...To determine which set of components is really better we must acoustically control a SPECFIC room where they will be embedded and compared together... And even then a room must be acoustically control FOR A SPECFIC COMPONENT to make it shine.. It is why it is difficult to compare which of two amplifiers is the better in the absolute, or between speakers, it is difficult because the room acoustic setting will change our impressions of them ... There is also a scale in the quality of electronic component design which can make us prefer a 10,000 bucks amplifier instead of a 500 bucks one simply because one isbetter designed in quality parts and in complexity and efficiency... Acoustic can make a difference between components which are not too far from one another in the electronical design quality scale... But when the speakers/room relation is under relative control, as kota said, then musicality became more and more a quality acoustically determined by many OBJECTIVE factors ... It is why great hall acoustic is an ART of listening based on acoustic science...The ratio ASW/LV is objective and can be controlled precisely in acoustic laboratory experiments but his perception is subjective, it is psycho acoustic.. Then what "musicality" means in electronic marketting competition has nothing to do with acoustic listening experiments in room/speakers under acoustic controls in general, it is two different jobs... For sure we must pick good designed component first, but once the choice is made we must design the room controls to make them shine in an acoustical "musical"or acoustically balanced way ...
It is why the dictum among acousticians is true : "No speakers can beat their room" Translation: no electronic component can beat acoustic control even speakers... In audiophile experience the easiest thing to do, so hard it seems to be, is picking the right component first , the hardest thing to do is putting them after the purchase in the right acoustic optimal conditions.. And there is also the mechanical and electrical embeddings but it is another story, and the acoustical embeddings control is the most important and the more hard part of the job to set right... |
@mahgister wow, a very long description of the word "musical". Glad you are willing to tackle it more. Just for grins, I looked up the word in the dictionary. mu·si·cal adjective
|
English is not my first language... This above post of mine had too much words and is not enough clear ...Thanks for your kindness..
"Musical" in audio context refer to the more subjective components brand name and electronic design marketing experience OR to acoustic controlled experience...In one sentence it is all i said ... One use of the word , the first, is more subjective than objective when a customer evaluate it for a purchasing choice , the other useof the word in acoustic is more objective than just subjective, because acoustic rules are not purchasing rules ... Then speaking about "musicality " can be misleading if we dont specify the context: Component experience OR room acoustic experience... Most people in audio as customers has no idea how acoustic control can transform component... Then they use the adjective " musicality" speaking about a brand named design... It is not EVEN WRONG...It is misleading...Because component dont exist ONLY in abstract design measured electrical values...
Because"musicality" is first and last, a subjective experience in controlled acoustic objective and variable conditions OR in invariable uncontrolled acoustic conditions.. It is more clear the way i put it than just only stating that the word " musicality" is misleading adjective or worst a bad argument...Saying this is not EVEN wrong... Because context is necessary to be meaningful.. And the word "musical" can be acoustically meaningful in acoustic controlled conditions OR can be meaningful for electronic engineer evaluating their design by industrial standards... If the word "musical" was only a petition of principle and useless argument as some say, there will be no "musical" concert Hall , nor any TOP OF THE WORLD very "musical" room... There is "musical" room and "unmusical" one; and they are designed by acoustician and not by chance but by a learned craft... My past room was not TOP OF THE WORLD, but was very "musical" because of acoustic control, compared to the same room BEFORE...And EVERYBODY will pass the same judgement on my room BEFORE and AFTER as i did because acoustic is not arbitrary craft... "Musical" here means something OBJECTIVE in the acoustic ratio ASW/LV ratio... It is not "a petition of principle argument", but the result of acoustic listenings experiment with variable control... Thats all... I hope i was clearer in this post than in my other past post above ...
|
