@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.
|
Ok i get your point better cd318...
I must admit that all my files ,the worst like the good(classical or jazz or acoustic) sound better than they sounded when played on my past not so good audio systems...
But there is difference between a bad recordings with a microphone for example and a bad mixings....
You mamas and papas it is more a bad mixing and then your point is right, a bad mixing is particularly unlistenable on a too good system...
A bad recording of a Scriabin sonata is another matter, and more listenable on a good audio system....
my best to you.... |
I think we’re all in agreement in here.. Resolution just for resolutions sake isn’t always the ultimate goal. That concept is actually built into my system, it’s why I personally go by the numbers/measurements for DACs, because I want that piece of the chain to be brutally accurate. If I decide that I want to soften some hard edges after the fact, I’d rather do that with speakers or room treatments. |
because I want that piece of the chain to be brutally accurate. If I decide that I want to soften some hard edges after the fact, I’d rather do that with speakers or room treatments. dougeyjones I am not sure to understand your point about the dac brutal accuracy measurements... But the dac was for me the most difficult thing to buy....It is easy to buy very good used vintage amplifier and speakers for peanuts with some patience.... I had....But dacs are relatively contemporary device with great variable qualities and relatively not as well known like other piece of gear....And the scale of price is stunning for a good one....I was lucky to spot one with a total minimalistic design, a NOS one, tda 1543, Starting Point systems, with an internal battery, powered externally with an Ifipower... I paid it peanuts luckily new on Ebay...I would not and could not pay anyway for the engineering continuous research linked to 10,000 dollars dac..... Many dac has a sound of their own....Generally their sound is dry or harsh for my ears, or clean and accurate for some.... But i prefer a dac that gives to each instrument his tonal timbre, not details, but his natural color....A cello is a cello....I dont want to hear details of cello first, but tonal accuracy of the timbre of the cello first.... For sure details and tonal accuracy are linked but it is not the same thing at all....When details are flowing in waving unity it is tonal accuracy no more details.... I own this S.P.S. dac and his characteristic is that he goes on with any changes in my system without revealing any limitations to me at all....It seems my dac does not exist at all... The best characteristic for a dac is not existing by itself....i will never upgrade it....Why? i never lack details on any recording at all each times my audio system noise level is decreased, if my audio system is not too much vibrating and resonant, each times my increasing controls of the room gives to my audio system the space where details can be listen to, my dac goes on without showing ANY limitations....My room is not tweaked to compensate for my dac at all like you seems to want to....The many controls in my room are not use to correct my dac...They are use to reveal the potential of my audio system .... ( By the way the first time i listened to this dac i think he was good but lacking in details. But truly it was my audio system eclectrical and acoustical embeddings that was hiding the details....) :) Then my dac really does not exist, i dont sense it at all by all means.... :) I forget it totally.... However he must exist because i hear music..... It is the best ever for me.... You dont want and you cannot upgrade something that is no more there..... :) |
Mahgister, I’m not reading a book every time you reply lol, tl;dr.
Not sure which part of my post was confusing. I’ve been super up front on this board that when it comes to DAC’s, I consider the units with very high SINAD measurements to be technically superior to whatever flavor of the month tech AudioGoners are obsessing over. FOTM right now is old technology (R2R Ladder), which people seem to be choosing because the nature of that technology means that building an r2r ladder network that can resolve greater than 19-21bits of information becomes very cost prohibitive, and so when most models encounter bitrates higher than that, the additional info is truncated. From peoples reviews, that truncation can be graceful and sound pleasing, which is why manufacturers are even bothering to make new DACs with this design.
I’m not interested in using a tech like that for the same reason that I don’t want a tube power amp or preamp. It’s like adding a distortion pedal for a guitar amp, you’re purposefully adding noise.
Just not my thing.
|
Ok i understand , you are very clear...
Each ocean own his fishes species....
I promise not to wrote a novel in response next time...
My regards to your gracious answers...
My best also.... |
Is English your first language Mahgister? Not giving you a hard time, just curious. |
No my English syntax and vocabulary are a catastroph of Shakespearian proportions.... French is my natural tongue...
i read english all my life, never speaking in english really with no one, and reading only philosophy or sciences and these 2 fields dont have the reputation to be very litterate at all...
Except George Santayana for example, whose prose are marvellous....I read it without even thinking about his ideas for the pleasure to read english....
:) |
You’re way ahead of me then, I only speak English and very bad Spanish.
In that case it makes sense that your posts are long sometimes, you’re just making sure your meaning is accurately conveyed. |
Yes.... Thanks for understanding....
|
I would give up resolution for a more pleasing warm non fatiguing sound any day. You are never going to achieve "real" as it does not exist. If you require real, then attend a performance. In fact, I feel that music reproduced in my home sounds better most of the time. I find concerts too in your face, at least rock concerts, with booming overblown bass. Plus the ambient noise of the people or the environment takes away from my enjoyment. Oh well, that's me... |
There is no "real" in sound stereo reproduction...
But myself i am glad when i reach the feeling that this is "real" : accuracy of tonal timbre first and imaging in 3-d second, and a soundstage detached from the speakers in third.... Nothing of that is "real", but my feeling that this is right is real....
:)
« Why dont you listen stero? i hate microscope» -Groucho Marx |
My modest little system sounds really good to me and my friends. I listen to a wide range of music ranging from Kraftwerk to Led Zeppelin to Ella to house music. Current electronic music (like Yello, Brendon Moeller) sound so crisp and clear while soft rock from the 70s is rather flat. Whereas, it all sounds the same on a lower quality system (not necessarily a cheaper system). I'm learning to accept this as the quality of my system as improved over the years. |
Frankly, if you're listening to today's pop music on anything more than a 40 year old Sansui receiver and Radio Shack Nova speakers, then you've wasted your money on a quality music system. |
jnorris2005, perhaps you can temper your declarative attitude. Others prefer different genres of music; get used to it. The high end certainly doesn't revolve around your taste.
Further, you seem to have profound ignorance of premium audio systems' performance. ALL genres of music sound superior on a superb system. As a reviewer I use many genres of music, some which I do not care to hear regularly. These are valuable to assess the outer limits of performance. Without fail, the better the audio system, the better all genres of music sound on it.
The fact of the matter is that the bulk of audiophiles' systems are not that good. Contemporary music sounds bad on these systems because they simply cannot handle it, while superior systems can. It's foolish to blame the genre of music when the system is poor. If you're running a $5-10K rig, then do not expect such music to sound great. Conversely, anyone can delude themselves into thinking their system is all that when it sounds good playing simpler, less challenging music. The fact is that if the modern music sounds poor on your system, then it's not that great of a system, and/or you didn't set it up well.
|
I listen to more “new” music than old/classic, despite having an enormous collection of the latter. EDM has been my thing since I was a kid, so I keep up with whatever’s new. The old curmudgeons on here who think all new music is poorly produced should be ignored because it’s just not true, they just don’t like the content. |
Steve's point, and it's one I've seen mentioned many times previously at shows and demos, is that better more revealing systems will often only serve to make most recordings sound worse.
Exactly!
An AM car radio serves songs better than a highly revealing system where the recording is poor.
Such a waste of Money!
|
I listen to mostly classical music, which you might think would be a natural for accurate reproduction of real instruments in a real space. But even here, producers generally have a hand in “shaping” the music. In the early days of stereo, an orchestra would be recorded with just two or three microphones placed in an optimum spot above or in front of the musicians. This did produce a natural sound which a high resolution audio system could come close to reproducing. Gradually, however, producers endeavored to “improve” the final sound by placing several microphones at various places above instrumental choirs, thereby giving them more control over the final product. This multimiking caused several abnormalities in the natural sound. All sorts of distortions we’re now possible.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, though, because talented engineers have produced some wonderful results using this method.
I do believe a high resolution stereo system should be. able to sound good on the majority of recordings. After all, even the worst engineers are not out to produce aberrant sounds. Of course there are great variations in quality. But a good balanced audio system shouldn’t produce extreme distortions. |
@dougeyjones
what is 'EDM'?? |
One important factor here is that we are all very neurotic about our equipment and crazed to buy all sorts of quirky "improvements" that are really cool but probably do nothing. It is best to listen to the music and not the system.
|
It's an interesting point, but all it will take is a new form of digital recording and playback and then it's back to square one.A scary proposition.
|
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. |
Electronic Dance Music. Oh boy. |
ISAHWPWQTATAATDTMUOOWCBTATLTTIAO!
I sure as hell wish people would quit throwing around these acronyms they decided to make up out of whole cloth because they are too lazy to type it all out!
If it’s not LOL or OMG, etc. please type the phrase the first time and then use the acronym afterwards.
1) I like Steve Gutenberg, have a lot in common with him, but I will never trust his word on sound quality. His current “reference” is a pair of Klipsch Cornwalls!! OMG! Collect those co-op dollars!
2) If you’re looking for physical bass impact, Maggies are not the right speaker for you. If you really want to know what’s on the record, they ARE.
3) At this stage of technology almost any components will measure well and sound OK to mass market consumers. Most all of them can become truly surprising in their performance if they are given surrounding components that allow them to reveal their full capabilities. Example: I’ve mentioned before that I bought a little background system for my dining room that has two self-powered, Class D, two-ways in brightly colored cabinets that look great. $400. As an experiment, I am feeding AC to the system with a Synergistic Alpha cable into an MIT Z-Stabilizer into an AQ NRG final link. Yeah, at retail I’ve got over $1K in “extension cords.” It’s been that way for about 2 months and I can’t bring myself to disconnect it. Image, transients, bass def from cheap components. Next birthday, try handing your kid a brand new hi-def AC cable. Whoopee!
4) Remember the original vinyl release of “Sticky Fingers”? Like listening to a can o’nails! I kept it and listened to it often thankful that I had a system capable of making the recording the weakest link. That was the 70s—no big, thick, 45rpm limited editions in Victoria’s Secret vinyl. Remember: if you hadn’t suffered through those bad recordings/pressings, you would never have known you needed $6000 worth of turntable gear and rare plastic.
5) Report on first week with 2 Schumann generators in my listening room: a] The cat is almost glued to my listening chair and continues “lounging” even after shifted to another perch. b] They are very quiet. c] I feel no ill effects except an overpowering urge to listen to music. Film at 11:00.
|
Wait when you will know how to modify them and link them to a grid of resonators.... :)
The Schumann generators not the cat.... |
Steve attempts to crystallise the somewhat nebulous feeling that climbing the ladder to the high-end might be a counter productive endeavour.
Kind of like the Heisenberg principle, the closer you look the worse it looks. To the lucky few who get there congratulations, its like you scaled Everest ...... but now what? For the rest of us, we keep climbing and occasionally falling. The higher we climb the better the view, it keeps us going. As my system improves the character and musicality of recordings changes. Some for the better some for the worse. Old recordings are of course different from newer recordings in many ways. Badly mixed or recorded music will sound more so on better equipment. Let the truth set you free.... |
I have never had a recording get worse by improving my system. The old recordings of Lois Armstrong sound better than ever and his playing is way better than when he was older and making great recordings.
Bad systems make bad recordings sound worse. Good systems make everything sound better. |
@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/ |
Yup. Nice post. Couldn't agree more. |
there is a balance between resolution and musical. A designer has to use his ears and the parts necessary to achieve those results.
Happy Listening |
In the world of classical oboe, for a long time players could choose between the "Swiss/German" sound (precise, neutral tone; very little vibrato; no "romanticizing of note production) or the "French" sound (highly expressive, large vibrato, overtly romantic note production). I quickly learned that I preferred the French sound because the players expressed such passion in their playing, and IMO the instrument simply sounds better played that way.
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).
My point is simple: if music played IRL in real space is your ultimate reference, it’s pretty easy to figure out what sounds good to you. |
Thanks well made observations...
Music is not sound.....Music is a whole not a sum of details....
Microscope resolve, musical instrument reveal...Resolving power must always be at the service of the revealing power...
Sound cause harm, music and silence heal.....
|
Most hobbyists will not be in the class of systems to enable all genres and recordings to sound wonderful. No judgment of anyone's efforts, just experience with gear from budget to close to SOTA.
|
Most hobbyists will not be in the class of systems to enable all genres and recordings to sound wonderful. No judgment of anyone’s efforts, just experience with gear from budget to close to SOTA. You seems to be serious? I had an audio system that cost me 500 dollars including dac, amp, and speakers, and it is the best sound i ever listen to.... Why because it is not the price of the gear that impact most but the way it is embed in electrical, mechanical, and acoustical dimension...All genre sound marvellous here even metal or acoustic.... And beside that one of the best amplifier in the world in 1978 does not becomes automatically scrap today... If your job is selling gear it is ok, but it is a bit snobbery to allegue price to be judge of the way a system sound without being even conscious of the acoustic extraordinary impact.... I dont even mention mechanical and electrical embedding, i doubt you even know what it is.... Sorry to be rude....Awake to reality ans spend less on electronics.. Spend more on thinking... :) Audiophile experience is not reserved to 100, 000 dollars system.... mine is so good upgrading seems ridiculous....There is better yes, but by a small margin at very, very, high price... Embeddings: the multiple ways a piece of electronic components is connected and immersed in system gear, house, and room.... To your discharge most audio system dont sound at all with their potential S.Q. it is true... Because like you, most people ignore the method to embed their gear....They think that all is ok ready out of the box....And manufacturer dont have interest to enlighten them when they pay for the "best" and dont want, in addition to paying big money, any hard work to reach the high level their gear is able to reach....ANY gear need to be embed never mind the price..... My best to you.... |
The fact of the matter is that the bulk of audiophiles' systems are not that good. Contemporary music sounds bad on these systems because they simply cannot handle it, while superior systems can. It's foolish to blame the genre of music when the system is poor. If you're running a $5-10K rig, then do not expect such music to sound great. Conversely, anyone can delude themselves into thinking their system is all that when it sounds good playing simpler, less challenging music. The fact is that if the modern music sounds poor on your system, then it's not that great of a system, and/or you didn't set it up well.
If this were true then why at audio shows do I not here a wide variety of music, usually the same Audiophile recordings. I know your going to say it's the room.
|
**** Can your Audio System be too Transparent? ****
Of course... IF the goal is to maximize enjoyment only according to what pleases our own personal ideas about what constitutes enjoyment and not to extract as much of the music as possible, which may be the ultimate and most enjoyable goal for someone else.
The reason is simple. With any diminution of system “transparency” there will be a diminution of musical information. Inescapable. This is why a truly great recording will sound fantastic on a mostly transparent (none are entirely transparent) system and won’t sound as good if that system is made less transparent. A crappy recording can be made to sound less crappy by reducing the system’s level of transparency; but, at what cost?
One of the problems is that we focus almost entirely on frequency response related issues which are what determine musical characteristics such as timbre and ignore the relationship between timbre and rhythm, a component of music which is arguably even more musically important; and, the nuances of which are usually almost entirely ignored. If we aim to make our systems less transparent (enjoyable?) with the focus only being timbre or other frequency response related issues we will invariably diminish (distort) rhythmic nuance and impact.
Personally, I don’t buy the “certain gear for certain music” approach. Only a system that can reproduce the impact of a great Rock band can, in my experience, do justice to a recording of a great symphony orchestra going full tilt playing Stravinsky. Of course, pragmatism dictates that we aim for some sort of balance between ultimate transparency and the realities of the quality of most recorded music.
|
Personally, I don’t buy the “certain gear for certain music” approach.
Only a system that can reproduce the impact of a great Rock band can, in
my experience, do justice to a recording of a great symphony orchestra
going full tilt playing Stravinsky. Of course, pragmatism dictates that
we aim for some sort of balance between ultimate transparency and the
realities of the quality of most recorded music. You had me- right up until that last little bit. I used to think something like this myself. Its not even true. You just have to do it right. For a long number of years I was just about convinced there was a point beyond which its just not worth going. Some recordings just aren't gonna sound that good no matter what, and the system is kind of like a microscope revealing all these flaws, until one day its good enough they're all flawed. Pretty much everyone believes this, which is why frogman ended with, "of course." Of course! That's just how it is! Of course! Nope. Not even. That's the most amazing discovery of the last year. My system is so much more resolving and revealing than ever, its freaking crazy how good it is now, and what has happened instead is ALL my recordings sound even better than ever. Yes the great ones still sound great. Better than ever. Like so good you wouldn't believe. But what's really crazy is the ones that always seemed to just kind of lay there, flat dead uninteresting, now so alive they're practically demo material. Or the ones that seemed hard and bright, they're now open and present. Sorry. Hate to say it, but what happens instead, when you are truly revealing, genuinely revealing, no two records sound the same but they all sound great. Unbelievably great. And you only want more. I've never been so excited and eager for the next tweak that takes me even further into them all. |
My perspective is that there are there are two general design directions for audio equipment at higher price points. One direction focused on more detail and resolution. The other direction is oriented towards more musicality and conveying the emotion of music. Historically, I’ve found that among equipment manufacturers focused on the ultra high end, American brand tended toward the former philosophy while British and French (also Italian?) brands tended toward the latter philosophy. To me, some audio systems sound "right" from a clinical, "objective" standpoint, but leave me cold from the simple perspective of enjoying music listening.
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. Some of the ultra high end systems I’ve heard (notably Wilson and Krell) have such good resolution that they sound larger than life (meaning live music) and as a result, the excessive amount of detail becomes the focus rather than the interaction of voices/instruments and the tonal quality of the music. For my own listening preferences, the sounding larger-than-life aspect is detrimental for my listening enjoyment. I will say that I grew up playing the violin and my audio touchstone is the experience and emotion of live performances that I remember (for jazz, classical, rock, acoustic music) such as sitting 8 feet away from Dizzy Gillespie in a small jazz club seating 50 people in 1989, the speed and deftness of Alicia De Larrocha’s playing at Carnegie Hall in 1998, the power of Mudhoney at Irving Plaza in 1994, the sweetness of Norah Jones’ voice in 2017.
My definition of musicality isn’t necessarily a low bar as some low priced audio systems sound highly musical to me while some ultra expensive systems (over $150k) have not sounded musical at all. I do find that it is easier to produce a musical sounding audio system if the design philosophy allows for "errors of omission" while avoiding "errors of commission". I define errors of omission meaning some aspect of music reproduction or sound quality being not at good as it ideally might be. I find that ultra high end equipment in the process of trying to chase an ideal can end up overemphasizing specific aspects of music reproduction or sound quality at the expense of having music sound coherent and satisfying. I will say that I think it is possible to build an audio system that does everything right, but I also think that the cost to do so is far beyond my budget and willingness to spend time to do so. I like the experience of having good sounding recorded music available when I want it, but perhaps don't have the need or desire to continually tweak my systems to make "improvements" unless I am in the market to buy new equipment. I have systems that play back highly enjoyable music for the locations in which I typically have time to listen and that is more than good enough for me. |
Guttenberg is playing to a particular audience & indulging his cynicism for its own sake. Essentially, knowingly becoming the fox in Aesop’s famous fable, jumping up many times to try & grab & eat the delicious grapes hanging out of reach & failing - then telling himself with some fervour, "They were probably sour anyway."
The human capacity for rationalization is never-ending & focusing on the worst out of a misplaced sense of convenience is certainly cynicism. Steve hasn’t embraced the light here but the darkness. What you focus on expands & he hasn’t chosen the light here.
He describes an aspect of being an audiophile & then trumped it up needlessly. One can go the other way just as easily. Wiser audiophiles do by tuning their systems well & veering away from the analytical for its own sake. Also generally, analog does better than digital here. Tubes better than transistors.
|
Is Diana Krall really ten feet tall ?
it comes back to your references, well well expressed by @desktopguy AND your preferences for distortions you like or don’t even know why you like them.
two paths forward: systems faithful to the source signal and flavors humans like for whatever reason...
in our short time here, assuming one go many should seek out a system that performs the latter - some of us with multiple systems seek out both and can realize with a big smile the flavorization
I know of some Artist studios with excellent monitors - say a stacked pair of VLR ( only stacked because of duty cycle and SPL ) where the final work product rows a fine line between Cortez the Killer and Comes a Time.
have fun, enjoy the music and the journey |
And I have to say this because being from Seattle, knowing some Definitive staff WELL and hyper importantly both Microsoft and Amazon employees at many levels the hateful screed directed at them by Mr. Miller is uncalled for. Wonder what Nature of towering ego needs to Do that ? |
Steve Guttenberg is a good guy i like him ...Great human being for me....
But his own audio room reveal to me that reviewing different gear all the time he does not takes the care to embed them rightfully, like many reviewers did, and how to review speakers in a non treated, non controlled room ? In a non controlled electrical grid? And sometimes with no controls of vibrations....
All music sound better on a good embedded audio system...
Any system non embedded has no relation with itself embedded rightfully in S.Q.... No relation at all...It is in no way the same system...
ANY audio system sound way less better in non controlled house embeddings and like heaven in the controlled house embeddings...But the owner has no means to know it, because he dont have a comparison point...Frustrated by his system he will upgrade parts at great cost without ever listening to what his actual system potential can do....
How do we know our system?
Not by paying a big price in money for good enginneering, no, not at all... By embedding it only, and it will sound good whatever the price most of the times...
Why?
Because Generic electronic design engineering is one part of the equation, the 3 others specific parts weigh more, most of the times, especially if your audio system was well chosen in the first place...
These 3 parts are: the mechanical (vibrations/resonance) dimension, the electrical grid of the house with his noise floor, the acoustic of a room....The acoustic of the room is so powerful that NOTHING compare to its transformative power....
Speakers of 1000 dollars can sound better in their controlled room than 20,000 dollars one in a non controlled room....You dont trust me? Consult a serious acoustician, not a seller....I learn it by hard work myself...
There is 4 parts who plays a role in audio installation and choices, the most important are not the electronic design component but their embeddings...
The reason is simple most good electronical design component can be exhanged for another different but well designed one with no absolute lost in S.Q. at worst a relatively minus one....
The choice of an electronic component is never free it is linked to the money available... And for sure a 100,000 amplifier is most of the times better than a 10,000... The decision to embed an audio system is low cost if you make it yourself and it takes time but not money....
But "no embeddings" at all will gives a hellish audio system or one under his own potential, even if you like it as it is ; but embedding it will give you heaven....
In conclusion there is some truth to Guttenberg observation aboutclimbing the ladder of price in audio...It is a waste if you donrt embed your system, whatever the price, it will be a waste...
For me i own a 500 dollars system including all and so good that upgrading it seems ridiculous for the price i will need to pay for exceeding its already good S.Q. ( around 15,000 dollars )
My system gives me all: dynamic, imaging, 3-d holography, sound completely free from the speakers and encompassing me or the room in my 2 positions of listenings... I cannot even chose between nearfield and regular position because each is marvellous.... I reach that by embedding what i have, not by paying it.... |
John, !00% agree. That’s probably the reason why I’ve mostly listened to vinyl for the last 30 years. The convenience and now the higher quality of streaming is now getting me to embrace digital. |
@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. |
My experience is that recordings which are compressed sounding, often classical and jazz cheap multi-disc CD compilations will be more annoying on high end gear. They sound like MP3s. I listen to a lot of 78s, including acoustical recordings. They have natural dynamics and keep sounding more colorful and detailed as my equipment became more resolving/revealing. Otherwise, any decently recorded/mastered recording sounds better on higher end equipment or great vintage tube gear (like a Mac 30, 225 or 240 amp). I suppose that Guttenberg was referring to music I generally don’t listen to, recordings from 1995 (retro, punk, rock, hip hop, rap, etc). E.g. Steely Dan and Yello recordings keep sounding better and better with higher end gear. They start out as meticulously well recorded albums. @millercarbon-I am in complete agreement to your last comment. Each recording is different (labels can have a "house" sound due to engineering, recording venue, miking, etc) and I am sorry I don't have sufficient time to listen more. |
My wife loves my system's improvements over the years because she listens to 70s and 80s rock, including heavy metal. My ML Monolith III stats were awful sounding to her. The Legacy speakers could handle the bass and dynamics of rock without brightning/hardening the sound. Her Berlin and Foreigner CDs sound almost analog like. I can listen to her Metallica and Prong "music." I have sold 18,000 records over the past 40 years, mostly due to performance reasons and due to poor mastering (compression-those 50s and 60s LPs that were made to play on cheap equipment or for radio broadcasts). |
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. |
The hifi busines should split in two areas:
Area 1) Music recorded from real sources in real spaces.
Area 2) Syntetized or strongly manipulated music.
Area 1 offers audio gear which follows the rules of "realism".
Area 2 offers audio gear which follows the rules of abstraction, subjectivity and so on.
In this way we finally stop expecting to produce abstract images using a Nikon camera or to produce 100% photorealistic images using watercolors, or even worst, to produce both using the same device.
This would enourmusly benefit both worlds. |
I noticed this many times. It's kind of ironic, but your loathsome NTSC video signals of years ago adhered to some fairly strict standards; IRE units, color temps, many things all very technical. Two inch helical scan quad head video tape recorders the size of your stove and very expensive. Engineers on staff to care and feed them. Some of that continues with HDTV, perhaps as fussy or worse on the production side, Joe Kane and SMPTE and all.
Any idiot could go into a studio and record music.........and you notice in an afternoon of listening. Bass, treble, gains, all over the place. |
@daros71
I largely agree with your post, except to say that even the 'realistic' school of audio recording and reproduction is still painting a watercolor more than taking a realistic image of the event
how do you fit a live band, jazz ensemble, much less an orchestra into a home listening room?
we are talking downscaled and artificial facsimiles here... and our minds do the rest |
