resolution and imaging

"I'm saying whatever amount of imaging exists on a recording should be able to be reproduced on a high resolution system."

I would agree.

Sometimes the imaging cues are there and make for a special listening experience. Sometimes they are not there, or they are there but too scrambled during the recording process to be recovered, and listening merit has to come from other recording factors.

"I think too many audiophiles are too quick to blame their systems instead of the recording"

Amen.

I think that Sns and Mapman are both correct. Sound reproduction should attempt to mirror the effects of live music as closely as possible, however it will never achieve this goal because of all the variables involved, not the least of which is a bad recording job in the first place. I know I have said this before, but I think too many audiophiles are too quick to blame their systems instead of the recording. The bottom line is you need to have a system that you like the sound of. And many of us cannot afford to buy the equipment we might really like. It's all a compromise of some sort. Shouldn't stop you from enjoying the music.

Newbee is right that often live music must be played in very inappropriate rooms, which makes it hard for the performers to adjust. Just last night, for instance, my orchestra performed in a church gymnasium, ooh aah. And at both of the schools I went to, the orchestra had to perform in a hall too small for it, though both were great for chamber music and recitals.

By the way, Sns, does anyone ever play any concerts in Hill Auditorium there in Ann Arbor anymore, or has it fallen into disuse/disrepair? I had the pleasure of playing in that hall back in the mid-eighties. It would be a shame if that great old hall died.

Mapman, I'm not saying reproduced images are exactly like 'real' images. I'm saying whatever amount of imaging exists on a recording should be able to be reproduced on a high resolution system. Yes, there are flat recordings, these should be reproduced as such. The point is, imaging exists in live music, and should also exist in audio reproduction if it is on the recording.

The greatest problem is knowing exactly the imaging properties of the original recording. I suppose we would have to be at the recording session (in some cases) or at least hear the master tape.

Learsfool, Thanks for the clarification regarding what I percieved as a superhuman hearing ability mostly achieved after the signal hit the grey matter. :-)

FWIW, my use of the word timbre in that context was not from ignorance of common usage so much as I can't imagine that anyone at an audiophile level would accept speakers in the first place that couldn't resolve differences between mic'd violins and cellos (for example) playing in the same register. Its just not that subtle, I think.

I think this has been said somewhere (probably in this thread) but all of the discussion about a live acoustic and imaging is IMHO nothing more than the ability of the forces to drive or overdrive a room, not much different that what a stereo system does in your home.

As evidence, listen to Mahler in a small auditorum - listen to some Bosendorfers in a small chamber. Either could put you off your lunch. Now move them to appropriate space and you get to hear a lot more inner detail. Remove the room factor entirely, i.e. outside, and Mr T would (at least I would argue he could) hear all of that imaging that he does not hear in his home or in a symphony hall in his favorite seat even if the distance to the orchestra was identical. But I suspect most would find the sound a bit sterile, being acoustomed to the reverberations added by the room. I do.

So, in the final analysis I tend to agree with Mapman's last sentence, and like Goldylocks I have chosen to set up a system which is not overly analytical, yet has enuf overall resolution so that I can get very good imaging including front to back 'depth of image'. Not because I think that this is 'real' so much as it is just the sound I like most.

FWIW.

"For anyone to say audio reproduction should not try to mirror these imaging effects is preposterous! You are simply missing out on part of the musical event with lesser imaging."

It should try to but the results will never be exactly the same though because there are too many variables.

You can throw as much money as you want at this problem and it will still always exist.

Better to accept this fact and live with the reproduction that sounds good to you. If its flat and lacking imaging or dimensionality, so be it.

>>it sounds more like mono, than stereo<<

How is that surprising? Stereo by definition is 2 separate and distinct sources. Everything you hear emanates from 2 source points.

In a concert hall every instrument is a source point. Your ears cannot process dozens of points as precisely as they process 2.

It's no wonder your preferences are so bizarre.

Imaging live is different than imaging from 2 speakers but there is imaging occurring nonetheless in both cases.

I have heard systems morph as Wavetrader describes. I often wonder though how much of it is the system itself changing as opposed to our ears adapting and tuning in to the new sound? I suspect it is some of both in most cases.

Back to live music and imaging. I've lived in Ann Arbor, Mi. environs my entire life. Living so near the University Of Michigan has allowed me the opportunity to hear countless musical performances by UM music school students.

The music is generally classical, groupings cover the whole gamut, all the way from orchestral to soloist. There are many venues to choose from, with acoustics ranging from world class to hopeless. Since most are free, I can choose to sit wherever I like, I'm pretty sure I've sat in nearly every possible position. Sound reinforcement varies from minimal miking to natural acoustic.

The variability in imaging at these concerts is astounding! Yes, there can be more of a flat perspective with the large symphony playing very dense and dynamic pieces. But with smaller ensembles, and even the symphony playing more intimate pieces, there is a multitude of imaging effects. Live music can cover the broad spectrum of imaging effects, from holographic to dead flat, it is all there.

For anyone to say audio reproduction should not try to mirror these imaging effects is preposterous! You are simply missing out on part of the musical event with lesser imaging.

As to what Learsfool hears as far as tonality and image specicifity, I hear the exact same thing. I do think one has to train themselves to hear these things. My early training came from Jimmy, my audiophile/sound reinforcement friend, and later on, music appreciation courses at UM.

Hi Mr T, have you ever thought of putting both of your speakers side by side in the middle of the room, IE: just move them close together, as opposed to usual distance spread apart? I would think that that would give you what you are "looking" for.

Any thoughts on this, by youself or anyone else?
Bob

when listening to music there is a a "level" of clarity. unfortunately i think most stereo systems sound clearer than what i would observe at a concert hall.
i do not want to hear the turning of pages, the movement of a chair, as such non musical "data" is distracting. at a distance from the source of the music, i would not hear these non-musical "sounds".

i do not notice an image at a concert hall. it sounds more like mono, than stereo. i don't notice the spacing that some audiophiles talk about when they listen to recordings.

for me, the closer to live, the better.

Newbee, I just re-read what I posted, and that does sound crazy (I really should stop making these posts so late at night). If the whole orchestra is playing, and all of the violins are playing in unison, then no, it should be nearly impossible to distinguish an individual member of the violin section, unless, as you say, there is someone very out of tune or playing a wrong note, or an open E string when they shouldn't be. But if it is a very quiet passage, and say someone is vibrating differently than the rest of the section, or is playing too loudly compared to the rest, this can be audible. This is the type of thing I was thinking of when I wrote that.

Timbre does also refer to the tone of an individual instrument, it is not just a general term, though you would usually use the word "tone" when speaking of it in that way. From the back of the hall, an experienced listener should be able to pick out the timbre of the violins as opposed to the violas, even if they are playing in unison and at the same volume, which certainly does happen often. Picking out the tone of an individual violin within the section, however, would be extremely difficult, as you say, and identifying the make of a specific violin would be quite a feat indeed. If one was a violinist, perhaps this could be done, if the violin section was playing by itself. Being a horn player, I could come reasonably close to identifying the make of instrument if I heard it live. With wind instruments, this is quite a bit easier, as our tones are quite a bit more individual than those of a string instrument. I could certainly identify any of my wind-playing colleagues tones in my orchestra instantly upon hearing them, whereas it would be much more difficult for me to do so with my string-playing colleagues, who I almost never hear playing by themselves, except for the principals.

However, I hope it goes without saying that it would be silly for a concertgoer to even attempt to try to identify individual violinst's tones. Why I went there, I have no idea, re-reading that. I plead guilty, with a side of sleep-deprivation. Even to concentrate on a single section would be detrimental to your overall experience of the music. Only music students need to do this. The main thing one should try to do, besides enjoying the whole texture of the music, is to try to isolate the main melody or thematic components from the accompanying ideas, and follow these things throughout the orchestra. The composer assumes his listeners are trying to do this, and of course helps by carefully balancing the sonorities he creates. There is a great book on the subject actually, written by the famous American composer Aaron Copland, called "What To Listen For In Music." I highly recommend it to all who are interested, which I hope anyone perusing this site would be. He asks two questions - Are you hearing everything that is going on, and are you really being sensitive to it. Whatever sort of music you like to listen to, this book will really deepen your understanding and enjoyment of it. Goodnight, and enjoy the music!

I'll add some observations about what takes place(my system)when very good imaging,resoltion and transparency are present. Everything has been constant for a while....speakers,cables,preamps..but I have had maybe six different amplifiers pass thru my system. Now when cables break in they morph...I use NBS. The NBS cables when new produce a directional sound from my speakers. Very left..right and vocals are on the same plane as the midrange driver...so there is some soundstage & imaging but limited. When they "come up" the sound is for the most part dispersed much more openly and vocals are center stage with a lifelike precision. I charachterise this sound as "open" and the L&R sound as "closed".

As I listened to each amplifier...I noticed differences in the imaging and soundstage...with verying degrees of openess. I use two amplifiers...one is SS and the other is tube....that is down from six(the others are in various systems(not main). Luckily both exhibit wonderful 3D qualities,resolution and transparency.

These amps morph in the same way as the cables...the tube does when I breakin new tubes and the SS when I recap with new or different capacitors. The amps at first are LR directional as they "come up" the sound is omni directional with the sound eminating with what my father observed as "Is the sound coming from the speakers??...the sound is coming from behind them..." good observation...as now the majority of recordings no longer sound LR or closed..but often are 3D holographic extending beyond the speakers and in fact beyond the room boundries.

What actually happens here is that the speakers work in a extremely coherent and efficent manner...depending on the amplifier(everything else is constant)and I think it goes well beyond just to say there is a synergy. Resolution increases...transparency goe up in magnitudes...and imaging takes on the ability to produce space and volume of the original venue. I am not a engineer so technically I cannot explain what is taking place....but I know that distortion levels must be at low levels to acheive this quality of sound. I think distortion... lack of has more of a impact than anything else. I have come to this conclusion because of the differences I hear between capacitors when I mod my equipment. FWIW

Resolution and imaging are both good things.

Just think of you room as your own private concert hall that is unique and distinct from any other and don't worry about what the music sounds like elsewhere because it ain't the same so it really doesn't matter.

I think some are missing one of my points, imaging and lifelike sound are only one point at issue. I'm also saying that resoution is heard and/or at least somewhat defined by how well your system images and soundstages. A more palpable, dimensional image allows more detail to be hear. I contend a sytem that doesn't image and soundstage well is not maximally resolute, ie. the very spaciousness of the image and soundstage allows you to hear things that were formerly bunched up within less dimensional images and soundstaging.

Learsfool, As the poster of one of the 'odd comments', lest I misunderstand, are you saying that you can distinguish the tonal qualities of each violin, and perhaps even be able to identify their maker by their particular tone, when the violins are playing en masse and you are sitting in the back of the hall? If so, you have a hearing ability that I don't possess. Just disregard the remainer of this post.

Or are you using the term in the context of being able to identify a particular type of instrument when it is playing with others, for example when all of the string instruments are playing the same music at the same volume (if this were even possible?) i.e. being able to distinguish between a violin, a viola, and a cello, playing the same note?

When using the term timbre I was using it in the context of how the violins (for example) sounded in comparison to each other, i.e. blended vs individually identifiable, not how they sounded when compared to winds, brass, percussion, nor how the various similar types sounded when compared to each other and what distinguishes their individual tones from each other. Apart from picking out instruments out of tune or players hitting sour notes I have doubts that fine distinguishing observations can be made from this distance between like (not just in the same family) instruments.

I would hope that most experienced folks can tell the difference between various instruments, even when some very similar ones play in the same register, but from the back row in the typical orchestral hall, at least the ones I have visited, I think even this would be very difficult for many folks unless there was a difference in pitch or volume to assist in the discrimination. Now if you can localize the source, its a walk in the park, but that has nothing much to do with timbre I think.

Perhaps we just use the word differently? When I have seen it used in this forum, for the most part, I have assumed the poster was simply referring to a speakers ability to replicate the sound of an instrument reasonably accurately, but only in certain aspects, which has as much to do with the speakers (and other stuff in the chain) level of resolution as anything else.

I think it must be so, since neither you, I think, nor I would ever listen to a speaker reproducing an instrument (let alone an entire orchestra) and think that we might be hearing the real thing and 'thus be able to identify with any sense of certainty subtle differences in 'timbre' between it and others of its kind.

Care to buy a 'Strad' based, not on its reputation nor after hearing it live, but only over a stereo system and relying on only what your hear then (not its reputation/cost/bling factors)? Would you be confident that its tone would be the tone that you would want as opposed to the tone of many other fine, but different, violins?

So when I listen to music over a stereo system I don't think in terms of its ability to resolve subtle timbre issues so much as to allow an open window to what the recording engineers put down. And only the lord knows what that might have been!

Now for my first cup of coffee...........

Wavetrader,

Thanks for the tip.

I've acquired a greater appreciation of many of the older RCA recordings in the last few years.

hi tvad:

in order to decrease resolution, i either turn off the stereo or disconnect the tweeter, depending upon my mood.

To hear a recording that represents everything mentioned in this thread...I suggest the Living Stereo Copland "Billy the Kid"/Groffe "Grand Canyon Suite" Morton Gould....if there is a better recording that conveys the genius of these American composers I haven't heard it....A work of art of stunning beauty.

There have been some odd comments in this thread today - one can't hear instrumental timbre from the back of the hall??? No localization??? You should be able to hear where an instrument is located on the stage from any seat in the hall. Many composers rely very much on the audience's ability to localize sound, on and off the stage, most obviously Henry Brant and other composers of "spatial" music. This is what many audiophiles mean by "imaging", the ability to pinpoint the location of an instrument. And granting we are trained to blend our sounds together as much as possible, you should be able to distinguish different instrumental timbres from each other!!

And yes, there is an equivalent of what audiophiles call soundstaging in any hall - the sound of a great concert hall is very specifically designed by acousticians (with greatly varying levels of success, of course), and the recreation of this in a recording is an important part of "soundstaging." The best recordings do give you a sense of what the specific hall they were recorded in sounds like, though of course it can never be the same as hearing it live. Carnegie Hall presents a very different "soundstage" to Avery Fisher, for example (and a far better one, too), and this has a HUGE effect on what the music sounds like. If an orchestra goes on tour and plays in several different halls over the course of a few weeks, sometimes very big adjustments must be made to account for the different sound, or "soundstage" if you will, of each hall. Another example of how the "soundstage" can change in the same hall is if the orchestra changes their set-up, as they often do. Placing sections on different levels of risers or keeping everyone on the floor makes a very big difference to the sound out in the hall. Or moving a shell backwards or forwards so that there is more or less room on the stage (thus making the distance between players change). Or having movable side panels. All of these things will greatly affect the "soundstage" that is presented to the audience in the hall, and many modern halls are designed with many such features, so that the hall can sound different from week to week.

And for a trained musician, it is indeed possible to pick out an individual member of a violin section, even from the last row, though certainly most concertgoers would not be able to do this. It is easier to pick out individual players of the brass or woodwind sections, especially if you attend concerts by the same orchestra on a regular basis. And speaking of seating location, I hope, Mr. Tennis, that your favored last row is not under an overhang of any kind. If it is, this might indeed interfere with your ability to perceive the music as the performers are intending, for various acoustical reasons, and I would suggest that you change your seat if this is the case.

I did not mean to suggest that soundstaging and imaging are more important than accurate realization of instrumental timbre, of course, just that as Sns originally posted, these things do matter in the attempt to reproduce live music as much as can be done via recording. Goodnight, and enjoy the music!

One sign of a good system I think is that few if any recordings sound bad. Few if any are perfect but most have something to offer.

I've heard a lot of original vinyl and remastered CDs of material from the 50s and earlier that sound very good, if not lifelike, in their own way.

soundstaging is not real. when listening to a symphony orchestra from the last row, there is no localization. it is difficult or near impossible to hear individual violinists in the string session. rather one perceives a string ensemble.

regarding resolution. there is a roundness and defocus, when listening to an instrument from a distance. there is such a thing as too much resolution.

as an example, consider a photograph of the human face. 8i am not interested in observing the warts, wrinkles, scars, etc. . i would rather see a smooth face. applying this idea to audio, a defocus control is most useful. it is not a matter of frequency response. it is purely the desire to create a roundness, smoothness and plesantness to the sound of all recordings.

thus, i view a stereo system as an instrument, not a reproducer, just as an artist interprets i want to create a pleasant structure to whatever i hear.

most stereo systems sound very unrealistic and unnatural when compared to live music, and a focus control would be most helpful to redress the discrepancy between live and reproduced music.

I agree that some CD's thought lacking...are now listenable. The increase in overall resolution has given new insight for me into the engineering of the recording. As example...Ampex 300 3 channel recordings are obvious as are most or all recordings where Ampex electonics were used. Interesingly they are among ones I like best....along with Studer 800 series.

Sns, I agree totally with your last post. This has been my personal experience as well. I won't bore with details, but I have so many CD's of great performances (thats why I bought them) that are quite listenable now than I did just a few years ago and this is all related to an honest re-assessment of my real goals and expectaions. I keep digging out these old remastered analog and early digital recordings. Like having a gold mine of new unexpected treasures in the closet. :-) I have not found any that sound worse, or even as bad, as before and the ultimate resolution qualities of my system have made a major leap since I put them away.

My last statement about bad recordings sounding worse may in fact be wrong. My view on higher resolution and sonically challenged recordings has evolved over the years. I'm finding that high resolution may in fact improve the sound of many lesser recordings if that higher resolution is accompanied by a coincident improvement in the other sonic parameters. Lesser recordings can actually sound better than before.

If the higher resolution you're extracting results in a more palpable, organic sound, its all to the good for the lesser recording. I can't think of a single cd or album I've tossed in the past couple of years, I tossed perhaps 10% of my recordings prior. I've returned a number of times to these previously trashed recordings and found new life and interest in them. Perhaps there is no downside to properly balanced high resolution.

I want it all.

Hmm. I agree with all of you. MrTennis, yes, timbre and tonality are critical, but as Shadorne mentioned, why settle for just that. There is absolutely no inherent reason why a system can't excell in tonality, timbre, PRAT, dynamics, imaging, soundstaging, and every other aspect of sonic performance all at the same time, why limit yourself to optimizing only one or two aspects of sonic performance. My goal is to have a good balance of all of the above, I'm not even sure I can place a priority on any one aspect, it seems I prioritize based on needs. For instance, a new analog setup has been doing many things correctly, but dynamics were sorely lacking, ie. I prioritized improving dynamics, job done, now something else will become the priority.

I agree that maximizing resolution is the key to upgrading all parameters of sonic performance. Each step up in resolution may expose a flaw that was previously hidden, and so you 'fix' that flaw and take a further step up in resolution, and so on.... And so, Dave is correct, "there can be no such thing as too much resolution." The worst case scenario is a bad recording sounds worse than before, that is the fault of the software.

Regardless of how an original performance is miked(whether live or in the studio, mikes front or back or high or low, close-miked or at a distance from instruments), it is a highly questionable goal to strive to assemble an audiophile system that propagates a particular perspective analogous to any one of these types of original "live" venues. If one ascribes a feeling of fatigue to resolution and thinks that the answer is to defocus detail & run for the "back row," then there is something wrong with that system other than high rez. To paraphrase several posters, a true component upgrade moves the system forward in multiple vectors. Any increase in resolving power brings with it other good qualities-- there can be no such thing as too much resolution.

On a separate point, compression in the production process detracts significantly from proper imaging. Recordings made without any compression(the CIMP jazz label is consistently a good example), are reminders that the depth/layering of a soundstage is communicated through nuances of fine detail at low volume levels. Instruments at the back of the performance space are perceived to be so, only if their subtleties of timbre are preserved at lower relative volume. Only a really quiet & high resolution playback system can reveal this convincingly.

Does it matter at the back of the hall...I would think only the sound level would be affected. Reproducing the accuracy of the tonal qualities may be like looking through a 4x optical but I really like the portrayl from my listening seat.

Wavetrader, I love your analogy. It works! But, in the long run is it valuable to look at the painting up close, when/if it detracts from the picture the artist entended?
The old 'failing to see the forrest for the trees' works as aptly, I think. No real answer to this question. Its all so personal.

Re the accuracy of timbre both in general and as emphasized by Mr T..... On a recording the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of timbre would be effected more by mic placement than clarity of detail I think, or attributibe to one or several instruments together which are out of tune and because there are closely mic'd and become very vivid in the mix become noticible in the overall performance.

FWIW, I remain unconvinced that Mr T can hear instrument timbre in the back of the hall. In that location the sound is so infused with hall sounds such specificity is impossible. Now if the Concertmaster is half tone deaf and can't tune the orchestra, that is another matter.

Horses for courses. Some like a fast track, others like (or at least perform better than others in) mud! :-)

Oh and let me throw in PRAT as well....so the bottom line is...for me... is a very low THD amplifier either voiced by the manufactuer or by me (modding) effects every aspect of the reproduction I hear...the enjoyment level has gone up significantly.

"accuracy of timbre is much more significant as a cue to recognizing realism in musical reproduction than any other factor."

If I understand the point of Sns...with a increase of imaging and resolution come accuracy of timbre and other things. Atleast that's my experience....A good way for me to explain it....walking into a art gallery from 20ft away is a large Jackson Pollock painting....only from 2ft can you really see the detail and realise his method of painting.

In fact that is a good analogy....music has many nuances..and that is where the beauty is. Not in a analytical way just the whole spectrum of what I hear from the instruments...individualy,as a composite,the room,and voice or choral. The whole interacting together..the performance that is what I like.

I agree with mic placement...on a whole the classical labels have always done a better job. I listened to a Korngold recording last night...done on the Marco Polo label...everything I'm looking for was there...simply
beautiful.

Now in regards to the level of realism or accuracy. When I started down the road of voicing capacitors I was looking for tonal purity. It just happens that the purest tonal quality I have acheived so far....resolution,transparency,and 3D holographic imaging were all increased to a very high level... all these attributes are tied together with tonal purity among others.

accuracy of timbre is much more significant as a cue to recognizing realism in musical reproduction than any other factor.

Could not agree more - timbre and correct transient response is much more important to me to. However, if you can get both - why not?

Recently I picked up a pair of MBL 101 E speakers . The effect is like being washed with a tightly woven fabric of sound in vibrant colors yet the imaging is not nearly as specific as any speaker I have worked with . I am not able to get the same pinpoint imaging yet what I am hearing is more like live music in real space

You can achieve both - you may need to pull the MBL's far off the rear and side wall by 8 to 10 feet to achieve it. Nearby second reflections really screw up imaging - big time.

as a musician, i am surprised that soundstage and imaging, which is not music is important to you.

when attending a concert, from my favorite seat, the last row of an orchestra, i am not aware of imaging or soundstage. thus many stereo systems sound artificial when compared to live music.

accuracy of timbre is much more significant as a cue to recognizing realism in musical reproduction than any other factor.

most stereo systems sound more focused than live music. the "resolution" one may desire becomes fatiguing and is like listening to music under a microscope. it is no surprise that many of today's stereo systems do not compare favorably to that which could have been configured during the 60's and 70's, especially with respect to extended duration listening sessions.

Nice thread - proper imaging and soundstaging is an extremely high priority for me, as I am a professional orchestral musician. I believe a recording engineer should try to recreate the sound of the orchestra in the hall as well as possible, but most of them do not actually even attempt to do this anymore in this digital age. And I should also point out that the "imaging" of live music may sound very different depending on where you are sitting in the hall. Sitting as close as row D would not be the best perspective in most halls. To grossly generalize, sound travels up and back through the hall, so in a great hall, very often the best seats are towards the back and higher up in the hall, though maybe not the nosebleeds. In many of the great sounding orchestral recordings made before the digital era, this is where the mikes were placed. Even Mercury, which usually placed them above the orchestra instead of out in the hall, placed them at least a good 15 feet higher than the orchestra, and often higher yet. You almost never see recording engineers placing mikes anywhere near the back of the hall anymore, or that high either. And when they place different mikes on every section, or even on every individual instrument, on separate tracks, and then mix all of it together later, almost always this results in a complete loss of the sense of the original space, and there is nothing any playback system can do to remedy this - Humpty-Dumpty is broken, and you can't put him back together.

All of that said, though, I also whole-heartedly agree with those who said that the performance is the main thing - a recording can have incredible sonics, but if I strongly dislike the performance, I'm not going to pull it out very often. One should be able to enjoy a great performance, even if it wasn't recorded very well, or is played back on a mediocre system. OK, I'm done rambling for tonight. Goodnight, and enjoy the music!

Great thread . Is it about the music or its reproduction . Its both of course but oh how we obsess over the details. Its what motivates us and keeps us hooked on this fascinating hobby. Resolution is often what drives us as each incremental upgrade uncovers more of the recordings we love . We gravitate to better recordings as time passes and often this dictates our listening habits. It often begins with solid state and gravitates to tube gear and sometimes right back. Imaging and sound staging properties can often be a product of speaker placement and acoustical room control. Indeed , a Pandora's Box that should be opened and worked on diligently. My personal journey has evolved around the balance between achieving the most resolution I can obtain while maintaining intense musicality which hooks me into the listening chair for hours. Musicality is one of those intangible words that we all seem to recognize yet cant express . I think its a personal effect . I have been through electrostats , line source , direct radiating ect ect ect and they all bring their particular magic to the table. Recently I picked up a pair of MBL 101 E speakers . The effect is like being washed with a tightly woven fabric of sound in vibrant colors yet the imaging is not nearly as specific as any speaker I have worked with . I am not able to get the same pinpoint imaging yet what I am hearing is more like live music in real space . I find myself unchaining my brain and allowing my mind to effortlessly wander through the soundscape without the desire to evaluate the specifics . I imagine we all experience our systems a little differently , this is just my observations .

Sns,

I agree with your assessment.

OK, found it. Here is a very pointed and brief post on the futility of using live music as your goal that really nails it, IMO. Some of you are probably familiar with the author, Romy the Cat. In this case, I could not agree more with him. English is obviously not his first language, though he seems to do pretty well with it in spite of that. Check out the rest of his site for some entertaining, and often illuminating reading.

some recordings are made to 'image' on a 2 channel stereo, while others are not. as for an image that is too big...most live music is even bigger....and there's no imaging, at least in the audiophile sense of the word...and bass is never 'tight'or'fast'.

I ask, should live music really be the holy grail of audio experience? Based on my live concert experiences, I would more often choose to hear my audio system over live music. I point to poor sound reinforcement, less than favorable venue acoustics, even poor performance as reasons to favor the in home experience. While I can accept live music as the ultimate musical experience, it more often doesn't live up to it's promise.

Absolutely have the same kinds of experience with much of the live music I hear (not all of it or I'd probably just stop going). As I intimated before, holding the experience of live music as the "holy grail", as you put it, is an exercise in frustration, and can easily get in the way of enjoying a perfectly wonderful system. I recently read an excellent summation this fruitless effort, albeit in rather coarse terms. Nevertheless, it summed up my feelings on the matter quite well. I'll see if I can find it in my 'history' and post a link.

I completely agree that room treatments can make or break both a system or a concert venue. It does not necessarily have to spoil ones experience of the music though...I guess that's really up to the individual. I can think of concerts where the acoustics were not great and I had a great time and very much enjoyed the experience, and I can also think of times where poor acoustics absolutely ruined what might have been a really great concert.

I don't think that depth and dimension is the be-all end-all goal of all audiophiles. As Dave_b illustrating with the 'meaningless drivel', which could, of course, be applied to most of anyone's material pursuits. I guess my response to that would be to ask why you were participating in the conversation if you felt that way? Other than that I agree with the rest of the sentiment - go with what moves your heart and soul. I don't know that any of us can actually completely remove our 'head' from the equation, but it is a noble pursuit (the world may be a better place if we could). Ultimately it is the best of what music does for me (as well as other pursuits of passion): it takes me out of my head. What a great feeling that is!!

Sns--another thanks for the Boss of B-3--just ordered it --sounds like a great cd--glad to know I am not the only one trying to figure how far back the drum is from the sax in a live jazz club :):)

Wavetrader, Consider that what you hear depends on your proximity to the instrument(s) making the sound. What a mic picks up is also mostly (but not identically to your ears) dependent on proximity. If you were on the podium you would much more easily hear width, depth, height and 'highlighted soloists' would no longer sound highlighted, for pianist and violinists at least are more often than not very near the podium. This also applies to the presence of 'imaging' on chamber music in a chamber vs a symphony hall.

A lot of recordings are, IMHO, recorded and mixed, with the 'podium effect'. The problem, if that is what it is, is that most of us never get to stand on the podium so it is a sound with which we are not familar, and is the reason that so many folks feel a well developed sense of imaging is artificial and unnecessary.

I think there is also a downside to great imaging for just this reason. When you are listening to the 'podium effect', as a result of the recording methodology and your equipment/set up, the performance (in your subconscious) often gets second billing to the sound of specificity.

Recall those many requests for recordings in forums from folks who want the recordings with the best sound (SACD's or vinyl for example) without any emphasis on the importance on performance. Often I get a guilty conscience when I find myself pulling a Reference Recording off the shelf primarily because they are great recordings, not because they are the best performances I have, and only occasionally do they contain both excellent performances and sonics (try Copland's 3rd Symphony et al - WOW!).

Once you have fixed your attention on the 'podium effect' it becomes hard to ignore its presence, or for that matter its absence, all to the detriment of the music/performance.

If I could go back in time, I think I could have been very happy with the Omni speaker experience if I had kept an open mind. Now it is too late for that, for me.

Above all I want to hear *depth*. I want to hear that the brass and woodwind are all the way back there, behind the massed strings. I don't want brass and woodwind sounding as if they were on the same plane as the strings. Now, if there were some nice separation, and the French horns were over to one side, and the oboes were just left of centre, etc. etc., that would be great too, but I can get by with the aural simulacrum of how an orchestra is arrayed on a stage, front to back. (And yes, the timpani should be waaaay back there...)

Newbee said...."Now I'm sure that if I was on the podium I would hear it differently." Interesting....In the recording were hearing what the mic gathers....so the info must be there...I would think. Now the issue is can the electronics and speakers reproduce it.

Wavetrader, exactly my findings.

Sns...seems like your endeavers into tweaking equipment with capacitor voicing has paid dividends. I too have become a beleiver in capacitor performance making a impact on lower THD leading to sonic improvement. The most significant gains have been in transparency,3d holographics,and tonal realism. I realise only good quality and designed equipment will deliver the greatest improvements....but these gains are very real.

Its not all meaningless drivel if you want to take meaningful steps towards attaining sound that moves your soul. Understanding the language of sonic performance gives you the knowledge to reach your goals. Without knowledge of the language, this is a foreign tongue, aka your drivel.

It's all elusive meaningless drivle in the end...pick a sound that moves your soul, not your head!