>>there is one "fly in the ointment<<
You don't know how right you are. |
Interesting discussion. While I can understand the pursuit of best sound reproduction available (within the constraints of your budget if you have one) what I can't understand is how does one know when the pinacle has been reached and that further pursuit is merely a fine tuning to ones taste? We all know that absolute fidelity to the real thing is impossible, but we really don't know how close you can get. A recording studio engineer has the luxury of hearing live music nearly everyday and then hearing the same music reproduced on a system. The equipment choices and acoustically tailored studios of these folks are probably most indicative of a "pinnacle" in sound. I agree that home audio enthusiasts don't stand much of a chance and probably end up with something tailored to their taste. However, you can find out what pros use and select gear accordingly rather than the latest models appearing in the audio rags (still many choices but ALL highly regarded pro gear will at least have been "vetted" by many professionals/musicians). |
All of this presumes that the audio engineer's ears and tastes are inline with what whatever audiophile "standard" folks in this thread hopefully applies. That just about NEVER, EVER happens.
Let us not forget musicians, engineers, and audiophiles are three distinct species, with the overlap of audiophiles and the other two being by far the smallest in the equation. Yes, there is a small movement towards those who publish things almost exactly as they were recorded, but again, it is a small movement. The industry has accepted certain bastardizations as being necessary to make music either playable on a car/table radio or saleable.
Recording engineers, like anyone working in a field mixing both art and science, leave as much of a fingerprint on the sound as anyone in the band. When you go to different restaurants, the same recipe will taste different because a different chef has prepared it. Music is absolutely no different. Anyone who hears the original tapes in comparison to the mixdowns knows the latter rarely lines up with the former. In fact, musicians seek out engineers to lend a particular flavor or "seasoning" to the end product. For example, engineers such as Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois have very recognizable sonic signatures. Lanois' work, characterized by his incredibly dark and heavy sound is as far away from what is originally put down on tape as one can imagine, yet he remains always in demand with the most well known musicians in the industry.
Bottom line, the way your system sounds is as unique as your musical taste. No need to fret over it, or feel you aren't living up to some "standard". Just go with it; whether "it" is the absolute sound of unamplified instruments or something different than that. No one is ever held to account as to why they drink Coke or Pepsi, why let them them hold you to something with your system and/or music? After all, the tastes of those involved in making and producing that music are just as varied as ours. |
I'd guess that few people (in practice) judge a system by it's fidelity to the live performance that the recording in use represents. As several have noted above few people have had the opportunity to compare. Even for those who have had the opportunity (I had one such as e.p. on a wonderful cd - virtuoso French horn player Richard Todd's "With A Twist"). The recording process makes direct comparison difficult. The sound of Richard's horn, live in the studio vs via the monitors, vs via the monitors in the mix all differed - sometimes subtly, occassionally less so.
IME, most people judge a system on whether the illusion of some abstract live perfomance is convincing. This abstract illusion is more a platonic ideal than a real world reference point.
As a practical matter, the ability of a system to produce such an illusion is related to, but not identical to, what is on the recording. A great recording provides a great system an opportunity to prove convincing.
The original question posed here "Is this the closest approach" can't be answered. For timbre, detail, midrange purity, and several other components of the illusion, a Quad based system that is seamlessly extended into deep bass is one very effective approach. For the full impact illusion of a rock band at/near live volume levels, it cannot touch -IMHO- a big MBL or many other monster dynamic systems. Conversely, these dynamic systems - again IMHO - fall short of the Quad on those qualities that make the Quad so effective.
IMHO, the closest approach depends on the system, the recording, the type of music, and the particular priorities of the listener at hand. I've never heard a system that is al things to all listeners on all recordings.
Marty |
Mr T, LOL! "there is one fly in the ointment' you say. A gadfly perhaps?
Detlof, I do agree with you. For myself, having overall satisfaction with the audio system(s) allows me to hear thru it to the contents of the recordings. Sometimes they are well recorded, sometimes not. Sometimes the performances are excellent, sometimes not. It has always been so, except now the performance of the system has reached a threshold where its performance seems to no longer be an issue for me. Interestingly I have also been listening to some old recordings that had, for acoustic reasons alone, not been getting much play time. Now I have discovered that many were far more involving and my earlier judgements were premature. That is all I ever wanted. As Von K once said about digital, the rest is gaslight.
:-) |
Martykl, you're basically saying that the real thing has lots of dimensions, and that there is no such a thing that gets close to it along all dimensions...there are always tradeoffs.
Can you single out one or two dimensions that a quad + woofer doesn't deliver very well on (beyond sheer power, which is something I am not too concerned about -- what I have is more than enough for my room)? If so, is there anything one can do to improve the performance of a quad-based rig along these dimensions? |
GG
Sheer power/large scale dynamics was the main thing I was driving at. In the case of the MBL, you can add a certain sense of dimensionality to the imaging (particularly a soloist in front of full accompaniement) that is different, and for me, more convincing than Quads (or anything else).
If you've got Quads well integrated to a sub, I wouldn't have any advice for you. The Quads aren't perfect and I don't know of any way to change that. But, for all I've said about MBL, I'd personally take a great Quad/Sub set-up first, because I prioritize for certain things (particularly octave to octave balance) that the MBL doesn't shine on. I was merely pointing out that your phrase "the closest approach" begs the question "to what?" Sounds like you're on a good road for your priorities.
Good luck,
Marty |
GG
I have no trouble with what Marty has pointed out to you. Actually I agree with him almost completely. I have owned Quads plus subs for practically more than 20 years, have in search of more power duplicated, triplicated even quadrupolated them, because I could not get their almost perfect timbre with cone speakers, absolutely hated the sound of a big MBL system, probably badly set up, as completely unnatural and settled on the big Sound Labs as a compromise. If you are used to the almost perfect musical timbre which ESLs are able to produce for almost all voices and instruments, you are spoilt for life. So be careful, you might stop there...(:
Newbee:
Oh yea, old von K, no audiophile I would say, music-lover yes but that had third place. First his love for power, second his vanity. Excellent business sense and very dangerous if crossed.
I also live happily in the stone age. Never really left it in actual fact.
Cheers, |
Detlof,
Funny you chose Soundlabs as your "compromise". I have reached the same conclusion: If I go with ESLs, they'll be Soundlabs (or is that "Sound Labs"?) for the same reason. Now I just gotta figure out where to put 2 giant panels and I'm all set.
BTW I believe that MBL is a uniquely "love 'em AND hate 'em" product. What they do well is important to me and they do it better than any other speaker I've heard, However, the stuff that is very important to me, they do unacceptably. Love 'em AND hate 'em. Ultimately, won't buy 'em.
Marty |
Marty,
It is Sound Labs, however www.soundlab-speakers.com. (: and yea, they do squash the room sort of and we better not speak of the WAF problems they might stir up. However they are absolutely perfect for infield listening, throw a great soundstage where they disappear in...and they are STATORS. ((: |
All right, guys, my main takeaway from this very interesting thread (beyond the philosophical questions we've been discussing) is that I am probably stuck for a long time here (although I really like the way the Gradient Helsinki look, not to speak of some Sonus Faber's and one day or another I might give it a try...). I still have some tweaking to do with the electronics -- my power amp, the EAR 890, is just superb, but the preamp, an old SS Klyne, may not be the best fit. Looks like a Shindo preamp might be my next upgrade. |
