The focus and air lie


There always have been some kind of fashion in the way a system sounds and since a few years it seems that more and more people are looking for details, air and pinpoint focus / soundstaging.
There's a lot of components, accessories and speakers designed to fill full that demand... Halcro, dCS, Esoteric, Nordost, BW, GamuT are some examples.

This sound does NOT exist in real life, when you're at a concert the sound is full not airy, the soundstage exist of course but it's definitely not as focused as many of the systems you can hear in the hifi shops, it just fill the room.

To get that focus and air hifi components cheats, it's all in the meds and high meds, a bit less meds, a bit more high meds and you get the details, the air, the focus BUT you loose timbral accuracy, fullness.
It's evident for someone accustomed to unamplified concert that a lot of systems are lean and far from sounding real.

Those systems are also very picky about recordings : good recordings will be ok but everything else will be more difficult...
That's a shame because a hifi system should be able to trasmit music soul even on bad recording.
In 2008 this is a very rare quality.

So why does this happened ?

Did audiophiles stopped to listen unamplified music and lost contact with the real thing ?

Is it easier for shops to sell components that sounds so "detailled and impressive" during their 30mins or 1 hour demo ?
ndeslions

Showing 6 responses by mrtennis

one problem is the designers who may be motivated by fear of poor reviews. thus products are designed to extract every bit of data on the recording.

many of the products of 20 + years ago create a more timbrally realistic presentation than those in current production.

as has been said recordings are also part of the problem.
hi dpac996:

a great tune is a great tune, regardless of sound quality.

i can listen to music on a radio and get what ever the composer intended as i would on a "high end" stereo system.
the only difference between the two is the sound, not the emotional content. i can recognize a clarinet on a boom box. it may sound more "authentic" on a stereo system.
music is still music, regardless of the medium.

regarding air, i believe one hears notes not the air. air is silent. go outside your house or appartment building. do you hear air ?
the definition of music is the salient consideration.
a radio will present most of what you need to get achieve an emotional connection.

the difference between a high and low resolution medium is just that, resolution.

if you are focused upon accuracy of reproduction, than i would agree with you. however, much of the purpose of the music is transmitted by means of a radio.
hi shadorne:

if you are concerned with the details of the presentation of the music, you may miss the broader purpose or communication of the music, like the contrast between a forest and the trees.

it seems that you are more interested in the parts than the whole.

a rado or other low resolution medium will give you the forest and the important components of the music. as you indicate, you will not be able to pursue your goal listening to a radio.

by the way, if a stereo system is sufficiently colored you will not attain your goal. i would think that accuracy would be important to you.
hi cdc:

i have answered this question already. i will answer it again, as it gets at the purpose for having a stereo system.

there is music and sound.

an expensive stereo system provides the opportunity to appreciate the sounds of instruments--their timbre, for example. it provides an opportunity to appreciate the qualities that audiophiles value highly, such as resolution and soundstage.

however, the ability to benefit from listening to music does not depend upon its sound quality. there are articles in journals which corroborate my assertion.

therefore, a low resolution meedium is sufficient for enjoying music and a high resolution medium is necessary to minimze errors in the transmission of sound.

i hope i have answered your question.
hi thomp9015:

your statement about the sociology of enjoying music is without merit. no one can get inside another's brain and heart, and generalizing to cultures , at best, is highly conjectural and without any shred of evidence.

the statement is divisive and does not advance communication between humans.

it is best to confine oneself to behavior and words and not try to interpret what we do not see.