@mapman,
"The example of pop music on Magnepans is a classic example of wrong speaker for a particular kind of recording."
I've had no luck with electrostatics after unsuccessfully first owning a restored pair of Quad ESL57s and then getting to hear the Quad 989s playing back a Morrissey CD and making a right hash of it.
'You are the Quarry' just sounded plain wrong. I cannot believe Jerry Finn (producer) or Morrissey himself intended it to sound the way it did on the Quads.
Yet I know the Quads are good loudspeakers, virtually everyone says so, but could it be they're just too revealing for most pop?
As you say, maybe they're also a 'classic example of wrong speaker for a particular kind of recording.'
|
douglas_schroeder,
But that's the point isn't it?
Either the Magnepans mentioned by Steve or the Quads that I heard are either not even good enough to play back mediocre recordings on - or they might just be too good, too revealing in showing up studio trickery that perhaps the monitors originally used in production didn't show up so ruthlessly.
On the Morrissey tracks I heard, various weird mixing desk / phasing effects could be heard that didn't seem to stand out with all the other speakers I have used.
For me, it's an important issue because 95% of my listening includes popular music recorded between 1940 and 1990.
At what point in the hi-fi resolution chain does the music of the Beatles, the Kinks, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Bruce Springsteen, Louis Armstrong, Elvis Presley, the Incredible String Band, the Doors, the Velvet Underground, the Sex Pistols, the Smiths, the Pogues, U2, the Who, Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, Doris Day, Peggy Lee, Judy Garland, the Mamas and the Pappas, Leonard Cohen, Cat Stevens, Buddy Holly, Paul Simon etc (not to mention the entire UK charts from roughly the same period) all start to sound worse?
Then there's the additional question of why do audio shows so heavily favour well recorded jazz and the like?
Why do they shy away from the stuff that 99% of the world's population actually listen to?
Perhaps they know the answer already?
|
@dougeyjones,
'My response was always the same, to take the focus wheel on the projector and back it off perfect focus just enough to blur the lines between each pixel, but not enough to make the picture look fuzzy overall. Customers were always satisfied, and with good reason, 35mm film in theaters doesn’t look like modern 4k video production. It stands to reason that poorly recorded or produced music may be more enjoyable on systems with less resolving power.'
Yes, it's very similar to the same approach to soft filtering as used by film makers and photographers for decades now.
Most of us do not want to see high resolution images of less than perfect looking actors and models in harsh light without make-up?
Instead most people tend to prefer to see only perfect looking, highly made up, well lit images in the highest resolution.
In audio we want our music recorded in the best way possible, but when it's not (99.9% of the time) a little soft filtering may help a little. That was Steve's point.
Some manufacturers like Harbeth have even openly said they don't want their domestic products to be as ruthlessly revealing as the ones they make for professional use.
Those so-called monitors tend to be the unforgiving 'warts and all' types. In fact it's their very ruthlessness that's often cited as the main reason to not to use pro audio products in a domestic setting, isn't it?
Too much resolution.
For audio playback to move forwards it's very hard to avoid the conclusion that we need better recordings.
Recordings are the unfortunate bottleneck after a certain performance point, not the equipment, and climbing the sonic ladder further will only serve to make that more obvious.
|
@mahgister,
’But you seems to say that the more we improve the system less cd or files you have to listen to because they are too bad sounding...’
Not quite.
I’m merely saying, as Steve also said in his video, that beyond a certain point, an increase in resolution can often serve to make certain recordings sound worse.
Not unlistenable. Far from it. Just not as good as you might be used to hearing them on ’lesser’ systems.
Or maybe more appropriate systems?
In fact as I’m listening to my Mamas & the Papas CD I can very well hear the severe limitations of the recording. I still love the songs though.
If I was to use even more resolving loudspeakers than my Tannoy Berkeley’s I would only hear those bandwidth/resolution defects (caused by excessive Phil Spector-style bouncing down) even more clearly.
That’s the point. Certain recordings might sound better on less ambitious systems.
No way I’m giving up on listening to the Sex Pistols or Motorhead just because my system is too revealing for music that was never particularly designed to be played back on it.
|
@twoleftears, 'If as claimed above contemporary music sounds good and it's the fault of our systems if it doesn't, perhaps we should be listening to it on those giant powered professional monitors they have in studios, because evidently it sounded good (and just the way it was supposed to sound) to the producers listening to it in that environment.' Because of audio's notorious circle of confusion you'd probably need 3 systems to do that. The first could feature a pair of Tannoy Dual Concentrics primed mainly for UK recordings from the 1950s and 60s. The second could feature a pair of vintage JBL L100s (or their predecessors the 4310 or even Altecs) as used in the US throughout the 1960s and 70s. The third might employ a pair of ATC/Genelec/Yamaha's/ Neumann's or whatever they use today. This way you might get close to what they heard whilst actually recording. Let's face it, no one's recording music to be played back on ultra high performance domestic systems. No one. Okay maybe one or two audiophile producers such as the likes of Barry Diament who according to his website uses Magnepan's Magneplanar MG 3.7i loudspeakers for monitoring! http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/ |
@desktopguy, ’One of the first sonic decision points I faced in my early days of audio gear appreciation was rather similar: many in the hobby are proponents of "neutrality," "accuracy," and "detail," while others are more interested in "musical," even "romantic" sounding gear. I was going to much live music all through those years (jazz & classical, primarily)--and I realized I prefer "musical" gear simply because music I knew well (once or twice recorded in front of me) retained its core sound & "feel" better on the "musical" gear than the other kind. These divergent sonic concepts have pursued me into headphone audio, where treble-cannon headphones are often the most prized (they give me a headache).’ That sounds like my preferences too. Although I also want accuracy, I’m very much in the ’musical/romantic’ (harmonics/timbre) camp. @frogman, ’Personally, I don’t buy the “certain gear for certain music” approach.’ I don’t want to either, I too want a universal loudspeaker that handles most music well, but how do I know exactly what George Martin and Geoff Emerick heard whilst recording the Beatles unless I have similar speakers to what they used at Abbey Road studio 2, 1962-70? [apparently they had Altec 605A’s in Studio 2 and the other rooms used a pair of Tannoy Golds! - I have Tannoy Berkeley’s and that might be near enough!] https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/abbey-road-speakers-beatletime.755817/@calvinandhobbes. Great post! ’I will say that my personal opinion (which aligns with Steve Guttenberg’s opinion posted here) is that too much focus on detail and resolution seems to detract from musicality for me.’ Yes, detail, often at the expense of harmonics, as loved by fans of P.R.A.T. (pace, rhythm and timing). ’To me, some audio systems sound "right" from a clinical, "objective" standpoint, but leave me cold from the simple perspective of enjoying music listening.’ Happens all too often at shows. Seems somehow more noticeable with uber-expensive gear. Maybe due to my elevated expectations. ’I will say that I think it is possible to build an audio system that does everything right,’ You’re an optimist, good for you! Me, I’d settle for one that’s has a very good all round balance. A proficient jack of all trades rather than just a master of one. But finding that elusive balance is another matter. |
@russhealy, 'Perhaps this is a bit like Frances Fukuyama claiming history ended when the Cold War ended, ensuring liberal democracy a long history devoid of any alternate system of governance.' Yes it does look as if there's a convergence of a science based opinion of what constitutes a good sound lead by the likes of Harman Kardon, Audioholics and Audio Science Review. Maverick designs such as the Ohm Walsh's and Tekton Moab's do seem to be getting thin on the ground. The question of when to stop upgrading must therefore be an individual one dictated to by the majority of one's own listening material. [The alternative would be let your choice of music be driven by your system, but that can't ultimately lead anywhere good other than visions of individuals with $$$$$ systems playing the same 5/6 fantastically recorded discs over and over again...] If you've already passed that unfortunate point of too much resolution (you'll know by the range of your listening material and level of satisfaction) you might have to consider downgrading to something more suitable. Many already have to their satisfaction. Another option might be to push for an increase in industry recording standards. Unfortunately according to Steve Guttenberg and others with experience, the industry does not see audiophiles, who constitute less than 1% of their business, with any type of interest. They know we'll buy the music anyway, so they're far more likely to focus on those sectors that don't. For those remaining audiophiles who still seek the maximum sonic pleasure from their music there is the additional, albeit time consuming option of searching for the best reissues/ remasterings/ pressings etc. Sites like Steve Hoffman's Music Corner have been devoted to doing exactly this for quite some time now. https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/forums/music-corner.2/ |
@plga,
Yes, excellent post. 4 good points. I think most of us have experienced examples of point 4.
But what about Steve's experience with the Magnepans and mine with the Quads? [and is it also the same for ATC? I've often read that they do not suffer poor recordings well].
Could it be, just maybe - without offending anyone, maybe those particular designs, although extremely high resolution ones no doubt, are not particularly well balanced for all genres of music?
Or even particularly good with poor recordings, emphasizing weaknesses more than strengths to the point where certain tracks might start to fall apart.
'2- When you get more resolution, my experience tells me that you just don't get more detail, you also should get better tone, dynamics, holographic 3D sound, etc. In two words, more realism and fun, not just details in a clinical way. Otherwise, something it's wrong.'
Could that 'something' then be down to a question of balance? Resolution across the board instead of only in particular frequency bands? A little like those headphones which deliberately feature a slightly elevated frequency response in the mids enabling engineers to listen deeper into the mix.
Or maybe even resolution at the expense of timing, tone and dynamics? If such a thing is even possible?
'3- Most audiophiles (I put my self in the first place) must learn to relax and not do upgrades too often.
Otherwise, we end up listening the same tracks over and over to judge every upgrade and not to other tracks that also move us.'
Yes, since many of us like to use 'test discs' to evaluate new equipment it makes sense to use a good variety of recordings for evaluation both in genre and recording quality - rather than just a few familiar well recorded ones.
Instead of too much resolution, maybe we're really considering a question of not enough balance? Or maybe they're the same thing.
Interesting.
|
@rvpiano, ’Maybe, just maybe, Magnepans, Quads and the like for all their high reputation, are not well balanced, but tweaked to achieve a certain end.’ I suspect this could be the case. On the right material they are said to be almost peerless. If I listened mainly to string quartets and vocals, they’d be at top of my audition list. The theoretical advantage of an extremely lightweight driver must give them a distinct advantage over certain frequencies no doubt. It’s often stated that the bass end is where their problems lie, hence the lack of balance. Excellent mids and highs, but not so excellent bass. Hence the likes of Martin Logan with their hybrids attempting to seamlessly integrate the dispersion patterns of those differing technologies. Until we begin to approach perfection it looks like it will always be a question of finding a balance. Some might prefer to tailor their system to their own particular musical tastes (which might well be narrow) whilst others might seek to assemble a system that covers all genres and all levels of recording quality. There was an interesting post, perhaps relevant here by @donato here on AG back in 2005. Electrostatic-vs-Planar strength, weakness "I concur with what most are saying here. I had a complete Martin Logan surround setup with Prodigys up front. The detail/resolution and holographic presentation of vocals were jaw dropping. Sweet spot was small. Hybrid bass was fine by me, although others have felt it was problematic integrating. In the end, I found the sound too analytical for my equipment, room, tastes. I replaced everything with a Magnepan surround setup. To my ears, in my system, in my room the Magnepans are more musical, natural, and forgiving. I definitely felt like I lost some detail, but I have no complaints with the Maggies in this regard." https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/electrostatic-vs-planar-strength-weakness |
@lonemountain,
’You are now hearing what was done to make it sound good on $10 earbuds and FM radio. They have to boost the bass, boost the treble, compress the crap out of it so its louder than other songs, all which sounds positively awful at high resolution.’
’I think this "awful recording" comment points out that that recording was intended for someone other than you.’
Great post, spelling it out as clearly as anyone could ask for.
There’s been some talk here about a recent Rolling Stones reissue being hopelessly compressed, and that’s just another example of what you’re saying.
The fact is the vast majority of major recording stars don’t overly care about sound quality. Mick Jagger’s interest is primarily in revenue from sales, and he’s far from being alone.
As with the Katy Perry example, greater resolution will only let you hear better whatever was done to the track to make it sound like that. Like most Pop music, that’s a far cry from how it was intended to be listened to.
I’m guessing that nowadays commuters are now the major part of their market, and compression works well with all but the very best closed back or in-ear headphones.
Audiophiles are not their intended market or their target. To think otherwise is to seriously misunderstand what the music industry is all about.
Actually it’s difficult to name many major artists that have shown any interest at all in recording quality.
Maybe Dire Straits, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Steely Dan, Pink Floyd, Kate Bush and err... is that it?
|
@jjss49,
"the issue or challenge for us who have our very high end gear is that much of that music is really not made to sound best played on our systems - we are simply not their target audience
mass market vs niche..."
Unfortunately music production is a business driven by the wish to make money and not by any inherent aesthetic wish to produce the best sound quality possible.
If and when we do get exemplary recordings they are likely to be accidental in nature and not by design, nor are they usually to be found in the mainstream.
I have yet to hear any Rolling Stones record used in any show for demonstration purposes. Plenty of jazz, (it’s very often something jazzy), and plenty of well recorded but mostly obscure artists.
So perhaps the level of resolution each of us may find optimal is going to be largely down to our individual musical tastes and the choice of music we like to listen to.
Maybe show systems aren’t for pop.
Audiophiles who are into well recorded piano recitals might benefit from more resolution than those who are fans of the pop music charts.
It’s going to be a question of personal preference, but maybe the next time I go to a show I could take along a copy of Now That’s What I Call Music 105! and demand it be played back on the best systems at the show.
I’m sure that Justin Bieber, Rita Ora and Lady Gaga etc will all elicit a standing ovation from a room full of audiophiles.
Or get me thrown out.
As @prof said,
"As much as some of us like to flatter ourselves as Super Experienced, the wisdom we have built over the years tends to be most relevant to ourselves and our tastes (and perhaps for those that share that taste). It’s not discovering The Secret Key Of Satisfaction for others."
Perhaps that explains why I have currently stuck with my dual concentric Tannoy Berkeley speakers for so long.
Perhaps they might be the near optimal loudspeakers for standard pop music, especially that recorded in the UK between 1960 and 1980.
As for those ultra high resolution systems that can somehow still remain forgiving with poor recordings, well, I’m still looking. |
@prof,
'It sounds, though, like you are mostly satisfied with your Tannoys?'
I'd say so. The Berkeley's can play almost anything without making me reach for the remote on purely sonic grounds alone. Previous speaker more or less forced me to search for upgrades - mainly with lack of bass or treble issues.
For sure I'd be happy with a pair of loudspeakers that maintained (or even built upon their strengths of cohesiveness and ease) but disappeared (box-wise) a little better.
In particular I'd like to hear some good open baffle designs, or even some maverick designs like the Tekton Moab's or the Ohm Walsh's.
Recently, after years of prejudice, I've taken to have another think about metal drivers and particularly their capabilities in the midrange. Especially after seeing how their use is becoming increasingly common in highly regarded designs such as the likes of the Joseph Audio Pulsars and Linkwitz LX521.4s etc.
@atmasphere,
'I've found that the better systems that are also very transparent will not make a bad recording worse, they simply play it without editorial. However, if something is amiss in the system, then the recordings may well sound worse.'
Earlier today I was playing Matt Monro's The Singer's Singer CD (allegedly the best mastering of his work taken from the best generation tapes available) and frankly some the tracks were barely acceptable on sonic grounds alone.
Some of the songs are simply sublime but great recordings these are not. In particular their bandwidth seemed somewhat compromised, with a less than stellar signal to noise ratio present too.
So I couldn't but wonder whether better speakers (more treble, more bass, a clearer window?) wouldn't just highlight these deficiencies further rather than illuminate their strengths in a better light.
Perhaps, as you say "..the better systems that are also very transparent will not make a bad recording worse, they simply play it without editorial." is true.
It would be nice to think that way.
"However, if something is amiss in the system, then the recordings may well sound worse. So IME some real scrutiny has to be applied to what is considered 'more revealing'!"
Maybe this very important need for careful considered system matching is a kind of consensus we can settle upon.
Perhaps this also goes some way towards explaining why system building can often take a considerable amount time and care, and not to mention - money.
A wrong step, however exalted and recommended it might be, can easily lead to eventual dissatisfaction if it brings along with it it's own 'editorial' preferences.
As @prof said earlier, real progress in understanding can easily get hampered by an increasingly vague and personalised description which itself becomes subject to an increasingly wider range of interpretation.
Largely relevant only to its originator.
No wonder they don't award any Pulitzer prizes for audio journalism.
Not when the limits of language itself will inevitably drag us back into the realms of subjective interpretation.
It's an unfortunate fact of the human condition that experience translated into words and back into experience seems to incur even more losses than any analogue to digital to analogue conversion. |
@prof, So if it’s the case that audio gear isn’t necessarily too good for the product, but that careful and due consideration MUST be applied before any major upgrade to avoid disappointment then some kind of personal strategy might be advisable. We certainly don't want products that exercise unwanted editorial pressures upon our desired musical message. The initial premise? ’My overriding first criteria is that my system sound "organic" - wood like wood, flesh like flesh - rather than cold, sterile and having an electronic or metallic quality.’ Absolutely the first criteria I would automatically use to assess any driver from the one in my smartphone / iPad / TV / Hi-Fi system etc. Far too many speakers seem to fall at this preliminary step. From the budget all the way to the highest of the high end. Stage 1? ’It uses paper drivers/soft dome. Both those speakers just exemplify the "organic" sound quality I love.’ This is what my current Tannoy speakers provide in spades, as did my Rega’s and the previous Tannoy’s. Stage 2? ’they were so rich, timbrally colorful, and relaxed.’ Hopefully this is what my next speakers will do even better than the Berkeley’s. Even cheap metal drivers can do good things with timbre, even if those might lack a certain refinement. ’Both use the similar looking Seas midrange/woofer [metal] drivers, so it’s hard for me not to intuit there is something about the quality of those drivers bringing something to the party.’ The promise of enhanced clarity without pain might mean a possible step up from the tried and tested organic paper drivers as used by Tannoy, Wilson, Sonus Faber, Rega, JBL, ATC etc. From SEAS : "These cones feature extremely high stiffness along with good internal damping. SEAS Excel Magnesium cone drivers are world renowned for their high definition, low distortion and sound reproduction." http://seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=49&Itemid=246 |
@dutchtreat,
"Visited a friend recently, who has a grand piano in her music room. Listened for about an hour, noticed what makes it sound real. Timbre at all frequencies, all notes. Percussiveness. Sustain, damping pedal effects, different sound played pianissimo to forte."
Time and time again piano crops up when evaluating the authenticity of any playback system, as does listening to live unamplified music.
You're fortunate in that you have access to a wide range of live sound.
"My guitar, recorded with the same mic, sounds like my guitar, sans alteration. My wife's speaking voice, ditto."
Again, live sound. Again, great reference points. On the occasion I've heard a live sound recording played back through speakers I'm always impressed by its immediacy and dynamics. It's the kind of thing that I've rarely heard in any commercial recordings.
I'm not sure why modern loudspeakers no longer have felt surrounding the drivers the way they did with the tweeter for example on the LS3/5 for example.
It sounds like you're getting great results with well recorded music but I hope you don't mind if I ask how your system is with some of the more standard pop /rock recordings in your collection?
|
@mikewerner,
"If a system is high resolution, then it is low distortion. This is NOT true.
This helps explain much of the seemingly contradictory statements made in this thread."
I think we could say that good system building can be a tricky business.
Describing good system building seems to be even trickier. Even professional journalists often wind up sounding confused.
It has to be a question of balance because if you imagine a system combining the best ribbon tweeters with mediocre bass drivers joined by a poorly configured crossover it might well offer amazing resolution, but only at the odd particular frequency.
The rest of its frequency range might well be noticeably distorted.
There’s also the question of room effects which might be significant for some users.
To keep the illusion of listening to to a facsimile of real musicians there must be as little as possible that draws attention away from the illusion.
Assuming of course that the recording is a decent one in the first place.
Even so, that doesn’t explain why so many high priced (high resolution?) systems often sound so poorly integrated.
Is that the fault of the equipment, the room, or even the recording itself?
I still want to believe the explanation given by @atmasphere earlier that a genuine high resolution product must not only be able to resolve more detail, it must do it without adding anything superfluous at the sane time.
So assembling a good system might just be a question of finding and combining those rare products.
I think it’s pretty obvious that most loudspeakers are not only guilty of the sin of ommision but also of commission.
Perhaps here lies the problem?
@douglas_schroeder,
"But, regardless of the designer(s) and manufacturing, only a comparison head to head would tell. :)"
I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.
I once compared 2 different integrated amplifiers together and was surprised (and given the differences in price not a little disappointed) by what I heard.
Once adjusted for volume they were virtually industinguishable. And that wasn’t even done by the prescribed instant switching method by relay.
With all of the various loudspeakers I have heard no two have sounded alike.
The Tannoy Revolution 3s might share a similar signature to the Tannoy Berkeley’s, but the difference in scale and ease of sound is still blatant.
|
@johnk ,
"I want my systems to sound as close to real music in real space as possible. This can be done fairly affordably if one DIY and knows what they are doing"
"This hobby is more about knowledge and less about spending. The more you know the better the end result."
Wise words. Care is needed in system building and price is very little guarantee of success as anyone who has attended a show will have discovered.
There's never been a better time to get into audio. Some much good gear at reasonable prices and so much real world information available.
Hopefully with sites like this there will be no more need for anyone to blindly follow reviewers and throw their good money after bad.
I tried that and it didn't work. Not finding the sound I wanted led to far too many compromises which soon proved unsatisfactory.
As you say, knowledge is important. Perhaps knowledge of exactly what you're looking for and unwillingness to compromise on that is the most important.
Sometimes just learning about yourself can take years. |
@unreceivedogma,
'Many people in this forum themselves care more about convenience.'
Good observation.
In my case I've gradually gone from a manual turntable to a CD player, then personally compiled CDs to avoid changing discs, then Minidisc for even greater editorial flexibility.
More recently, most of my listening is via streaming to my Bluetooth speaker in the garden or headphones whilst walking to and from work.
None of those steps particularly resulted in any improvement of sound quality, but they were all more convenient. I kind of gave in to them too, obstinately resisting CD to the mid 1990s and only recently giving in to buying a Bluetooth speaker, and shock horror - using playlists more frequently.
This is all a far cry from my purist audiophile days of endlessly cleaning stuff and experimenting with cables, stands, and upgrades. I guess I must be getting slower and finding family life far more draining than I ever imagined it would be.
I don't think the restraint and the uncertainty of these last 6 months have helped much either, and now the current plague is at new levels here in the UK.
It's wise to be careful and have some contingency plan in place, but there's little point in letting yourself dwell too long on what might or might happen.
It might, it might not.
My main system is still easily the most enjoyable with simply a bigger and more effortless sound but I just don't buy new music the way I once used to since most of the artists I loved and followed are now dead.
Thank God for Dylan! His last album has easily been the musical highlight of the year for me.
Just before the recent sudden hike in new cases we were discussing re-establishling our Thursday music nights (apparently there's a decent new albums out by The Flaming Lips and Bill Callaghan) but now things are uncertain again.
My passion for music certainly hasn't dimmed but it's not new music, most of it was recorded before the year 2000.
|
