Dynamic contrasts within a 3d soundstage. Tom
Top two most important sound qualities
In case you didn't know, it's 2023 and this website still hasn't implemented a polling feature, so I can't define a selection of sound qualities to choose from and see results in a grouped, organized fashion. Boo hoo!
If you had to pick two of the typically referenced sound qualities that are most important to you to optimizing the enjoyment of your system, what are they? You know what I mean, right? Could be a certain frequency range and some particular quality that you for in it, or any quality that applies across all frequencies, etc.
(Note: "Sound qualities" mentioned here do not include anything that refers to physical attributes of your system or listening room, such as acoustical treatments, types of components, types of source material, physical tweaks, etc. It's only a reference to subjectively appreciated qualities.)
135 responses Add your response
Like my handle dynamic linearity is fundamental. And I don't mean playing loudly cleanly although that would be true with dynamic linearity. It means linear level changes, no compression no matter how small or how large the change in level. It's one factor that doesn't change when listening to live sound when you change your seat or even leave the room and listen out the door and you still know the sound is live. |
OP… “Listing a third or fourth quality without indicating priority is fine, but it's dilutive because it's that much closer to listing all the attractive qualities one can think of.”
Actually, perhaps I wasn’t getting my point across. I was not trying to list many items through my experience… but indicate earlier ones lost top relevance as one learns and understands the real essence of well reproduced music. |
The lifelike reproduction of vocals is by far my first priority. If a loudspeaker fails that test it is immediately eliminated, and most are (vowel coloration---though significantly improved since the early days of hi-fi---remains a problem). Closely following is the reproduction of instrumental timbres, especially acoustic string instruments: guitar, dobro, mandolin, fiddle, upright bass, piano (yes, it is a string instrument ;-), and harpsichord. As for "hi-fi effects", it is image size and scale. Most loudspeakers sound comically "small" to me, the image of a grand piano, for example, being reduced to a miniature of it’s actual size. It’s like watching a movie on your iPhone. Hearing a doll house-size musical picture immediately destroys the suspension of disbelief. |
@bdp24 Agreed. Also, "What is this?!? Image sizes for ants?" 🤣 |
Effortlessness - that sense of ease that allows you to forget about the hardware and just hear the music. This is what well driven Magnepans or electrostats do. Huge effortless sound. Definition - clear highs without edge, mids without honk, full bass without mud. My acoustic guitars aren't edgy, or honky, or muddy, but I can hear those very undesirable distortions instantly on a poor system or recording |
Amen @noodlyarm. J. Gordon Holt used a term I like a lot, one I think you are getting at: "immediacy". I hear it in the sound of direct-to-disk LP’s, Decca/London pickups, and electrostatic loudspeakers. Horns as well, but they are too colored for my delicate sensibilities ;-) . |
If I can only pick two:
|
Space between the notes. Dynamic contrast. Enough detail and resolution that even Stevie Nicks vocals are discernable. (Found this to be impossible for under $100k) Oh yeah. I recently did a survey on A’Gon and got 209 results. Was fun laughing along with you guys on the subjject of "polls". Maybe a survey on how many of you listen to music with your pets? |
For emotional engagement, an absence of distractions such as fatiguing highs and poorly controlled bass is helpful but I'm not at all convinced emotional engagement is, in my case, dependent upon "high fidelity". I can be just as emotionally engaged listening to a car radio as my system at home. What's that, you say -- my system must be pretty crappy? Compared to others, here, no doubt it is but you wouldn't confuse the two in a snake-oil-free, scientifically-controlled, double-blind measurement-corroborated listening test For physical engagement, PRaT is very important; if my body is not drawn into the music, chances are the rest of me won't be either. I attribute this to my musical tastes having been formed during the 60's/70's when the Devil's Music dominated the air-waves and, paired with various recreational substances, insidiously re-structured the brain structures of vulnerable adolescents such as myself. (I wouldn't have it any other way). I guess this means my intellect is not particularly active during music listening. What's that, you say -- this post doesn't appear to display a dazzling intellect, either ? While there are, no doubt, smarter members here, I don't envy anyone whose aesthetic engagement is dependent upon their IQ.
|
In an earlier comment, I said "clarity and tonality". It just occurred to me that there’s an overlap of the two together which I could call harmonic completeness. Subtle overtones can’t be heard without clarity, and these make music seem lively and realistic. An imbalanced tonality will also affect the ability to hear them. Without refined tonality, sound reproduction will be less full or pleasant to me. The way I am using tonality, I mean the totality of the degree of the presence of all potential tones across the audible range in relationship to each other. |
@waytoomuchstuff ....scorching brows is easy (wayyy too highs of all sorts), cracking plaster is the subs laid on their sides 'gainst the walls... Now, shattered sheetrock? A 'renovation scheme' that underlies: All you need Is POWER. Watts up? Lots...and then some. :) Anyway....Just carrying on whilst being carried away...*G* Personally (Is there really an Other? Doubt it...), like to play the genre and the cut the way I feel it's meant to be...got some flexibility to do so, so I do... *S* Got to keep the radiators radiated and dusted in any case... Anyway....back to the regularly scheduled program... J out |
I just think you need to like it. There's so much confirmation bias, escalation of commitment, and subjectivity that it's scarcely possible to say what's really going on here. The continual upgrading turned me off eventually. The system should be suited to the space, it should be something I can live with. It should play the kind of music I listen to most well. I don't want a system that dominates the room from an interior design perspective. Ultimately, I feel that the key component is to acknowledge the diminishing rate of return and to isolate oneself from the ongoing dissatisfaction that reading web forums brings. I glance at the digest for this one and comment once a month at most. We've got a couple of Omega systems running off small tube amps with discreet subs and I think I am done with audio purchases forever. They sound great with the kind of indy folk stuff we listen to. Mids matter most because that's where most of the information is anyways.
|
Most loudspeakers sound comically "small" to me, the image of a grand piano, for example, being reduced to a miniature of it’s actual size.
Good point. I guess we don't expect lifesize image from HiFi because 99% of the systems we have ever heard don't have it. I graduated from bookshelf speakers to floorstanders and then 15 inch dual concentrics and whilst each one got better in this regard none of them have life sized imagery.
Effortlessness - that sense of ease that allows you to forget about the hardware and just hear the music.
That's another easy one to forget. Real music doesn't sound forced or strained but many systems do. You probably need the right combination of loudspeaker and amplifier to get that sense of ease. Usually that means bigger and more powerful. |
I like to be able to receive from my Cornwalls… as in be able to LISTEN, as opposed to HEAR. I’m lucky in that I can listen in my small space… not having to battle room issues, acoustics, and the obstacles of having TOO MUCH. Too much power, too much space, too much wasted money spent beyond satisfactory… realizing what MY EARS hear… not some self- injected You Tube expert says, and most importantly: TRUSTING! |
As @julie_priest sez... |
@grislybutter Imaging is interesting to me because the way I think about it, it’s a complex thing. It can be discussed in much more detail than simple H/W/D for a soundstage. One thing I’m interested in, for example, is image regularity. For example, in the horizontal dimension, you can have a wide soundstage, but the image can warp and become too wide or two narrow at the outer edges of the SS. A cymbal there can seem twice as wide as the same cymbal positioned near center stage, while at the same time the center image can be squished so that the singer seems like a stick figure. That’s what I’m calling irregularity. Or there can be vertical irregularity. On speakers that stack their drivers’ frequency response from low to high, bottom to top, a piano will often sound like it’s dropping downwards vertically as lower keys/pitches are played. This type of vertical inaccuracy can sound like the whole piano is titled at a significant angle, but different cymbals and toms may still be at or near the proper heights. Image definition can be thought of as the capacity to be located ever more accurately in space and have the sense of the precise boundaries of the shape of each thing which is producing sound in the recording. So in the example of tilted piano issue, with very good image definition there could even be a slightly different locatable vertical+horizontal position in space for every single key. Vertical irregularity can also be a result of good definition in the upper frequencies, but poor definition in the bass and mids. Then you have something like defined, floating heads and cymbals, and a more fuzziness and lack of definition near the bottom half of the stage. Tonality plays into this stuff, especially in speakers with stacked drivers because, for example, when there is image definition but inaccurate tonal balance, cymbals can seem vertically compressed when they are lacking a full expression of all of their frequencies. Acoustics are also a big part of how a system can image, of course. |
Dear @gladmo : Transient response/dynamic power ( both directly telated and we can’t aisle each from the other) and very very low every kind of room/system developed distortions. Which the main difference between live MUSIC and home reproduced sounds?: for me precisely transient response that develops the MUSIC dynamic power and with dynamic power I’m not refering to SPL. Each instrument played at any SPL has its own dynamic power. Transient response/dynamic power is what develops the overall natural tone color in live MUSIC where between you and the MUSIC source exist almost only the air. For me all the audiophile adjectives for any room/system characteristics comes from there added by several kind of distortions that puts several kind of " colorations " to the whole room/system tone " color ". To stay truer to the recorded source we need those characteristics before looking for any other. We need to put at minimum evry kind of distortion developed at each link in the room/syastem chain, it helps. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
To start with, without rhythm, there is no music. Timing is everything to music (just a single tone repeated at an interval can be considered music whereas random sounds do not constitute music). So, number one, the audio system has to maintain a good semblance of rhythm. Second, for me is the palpability of the sound, primarily mid-range where 90% of the music occurs. After that, it's your choice also dependent on type of music. |
