Frequency Response descriptors @audio-b-dog
What does the audio term 'air' mean?
I have had an audio system of one kind or another for more than sixty years. My first one in high school was a Sears Silvertone two speaker stereo that folded into a suitcase. I took it to college with me. Air was not even something I thought about, yet I think I enjoyed music perhaps a bit more than I do now. That had to do with juice in my brain and the newness of life and music.
I have taken the same steps as most audiophiles, spending first in the hundreds of dollars, then in the thousands of dollars, and now in the tens of thousands of dollars. I doubt that I will ever own an audio system over a hundred thousand dollars, but I very well may have put that much into my system with constant upgrades.
I think I began to notice what I call 'air' when I could tell the difference between vinyl and digital. I am talking about the digital of yesteryear, and perhaps a bit now, too. Many years ago, album producers began putting out vinyl that was marked digital. When I questioned the salesperson, he said it was just better. Listen to it myself. At the time, it did sound more accurate. More defined. The quality of 'air' was not on my mind.
It was when I began to upgrade my analogue front end that I thought that vinyl sounded better than digital. Of course, digital was still pretty crude back then. My system was still in the thousands of dollar category. NAD receiver, Energy speakers, and I purchased a used Rega 3 for several hundred dollars. I could not really say why I thought analogue sounded better. I told my friends it was more 'present.'
When I reached the point where I could hear a soundstage, the question of space came to mind. How high, how wide, how deep? Later, I began to hear instrument placement. But that still didn't beg the question of 'air,' even though there was something separating the instruments. I think I was still thinking in terms of space.
When I went stereo shopping with friends who had more money than I did, I was able to listen to more expensive speakers. Dynaudio were becoming one of the most popular speakers. I immediately didn't like them. I couldn't say why. They were tight, had good bass, and threw a nice soundstage. I think they sounded 'hard' to me. The attacks were very tight, but not very forgiving. It was not the way I heard music.
I went shopping with a friend who had gotten an inheritance and we listened to Wilson Sophias. He was hooked and bought them. To my ear they sounded a bit dry. So did B&Ws, and I came to understand that their was a British sound which people thought was accurate. And it did sound accurate to my ear, but not quite like music.
Music not only travels on air, it is vibrations on air. And the more I listen to live unamplified music, the more I hear that it is not as well defined as certain 'accurate' speakers portray it. A lot happens as it travels through the air. In orchestral music the instruments get jumbled together to some degree. In other words, there really is not space between instruments, however, they do seem defined within the soup of air that hits my ear.
Now that I own a pretty decent system, Sonus Faber Olympica Nova 5 speakers, VPI Prime Signature 21 turntable, Audio Research Ph-7 phono preamp, Pass XP-30 preamp, and a most wonderful amp that most of you have probably never heard of, a Hovland Radia, I sometimes marvel at the air I hear both in analogue and digital. I have a Moon 280 D streamer and on really well recorded, high bit-rate sampling recordings, I can hear the air that I hear on analogue recordings.
But I really don't know how to explain this wonderful thing I hear. I call it 'air' because I have heard that word used by audio writers. But what is it exactly? I wonder if any of you can define it better than I have.
27 responses Add your response
Check a music frequency chart and you will find the highest frequencies human ears hear from 15-20 kHz are what is referred to as air. It’s mostly the highest harmonics from instruments like cymbals, violin and piccolo when present in a recording. Unfortunately most older ears no longer hear those frequencies. It’s also the frequency range where a lot of noise and distortion can occur that obscures air when present. |
| Post removed |
Assuming proper front ends, i.e. vinyl player and streamer, air is about frquency response and phase coherence. The latter is often considered secondary, hence multiple unit speakers with complex crossovers. In my experience air is best achieved from point source speakers (usually high efficiency) and extra care on clocking the digital chain. On vinyl, great attention needs to be paid to cables, they should either be balanced or low impedance and capacitance, short RCA. The opposite of air is closed in stuffiness, as if you were playing music in an overstuffed closet. |
Above threads explain air well, Sound stage spaciousness and openness in higher frequencies is what I hear. I've long been attracted to open baffle and now horns as best at providing the sound stage spaciousness.
Part of your explanation of air is what I define as presentation, this especially important for digital. Analog is or should be our reference for a 'natural' or more lifelike presentation, analog has an inherent 'flow' digital may have difficulty achieving. Air is part and parcel of this natural flow or timing of musical events, minus this digital can seem rushed and somewhat confused, optimal clocking critical for digital.
Our listening rooms can also have a major impact on sense of air, I use clap test, want my claps to have some echos/reverberations, I believe far too many rooms excessively damped down in order to tame highs..
OP, your decades long audio experiences pretty much mirror mine, I've heard the exact same thing with the equipment you mentioned. |
My first HiFi speakers were Dyna A25s. I went off to college, and listened to classmates’ systems with AR 2ax, 4x, and even 3as, and while there was definitely something to admire…a smoothness of tone, there was also a closed-in quality…a lack of “air”. The Dynas had it, but didn’t have the thump I wanted, and that led me to Advent loudspeakers, which had both the thump and the air. |
Your question seems to me more articulate than the responses it got, so it's kind of hard to know what to say that you haven't already thought of. I don't know what you mean, however, when you write that "music not only travels on air, it is vibrations on air." Uh...yes, but so what? What would this have to do with the meaning of "air" in the audiophile context? In the same paragraph, you go on to say: "In orchestral music the instruments get jumbled together to some degree. In other words, there really is not space between instruments, however, they do seem defined within the soup of air that hits my ear." Well put! Very resolving audio systems, playing very fine recordings, can create a spatial image that is actually more vivid than would be a live performance. I've heard many string quartet performances, for instance—kind of an ideal ensemble to judge in terms of instrumental placement, since there are just four of them spread across the entire "soundstage." In fact, I play cello. But I can follow individual instruments better on certain string quartet recordings than I have ever been able to do in a live performance, even though live I have my eyes to give visual cues about where the sound is coming from. For what it's worth, I find this effect both exciting and musically relevant: it's easier to grasp complicated counterpoint if you can concentrate on each "voice," and by "watching" the sound in a virtual space (with eyes closed!), this is easier to do than by listening alone. Finally, I've always understood "air" in the audiophile context to mean something like the natural spaciousness that is palpable when one is present to a performance involving several instruments in a large hall. My living room, where my rig is set up, is large, but not as big as a concert hall! So there's an inevitable cramping of the spaciousness of a live performance when one reproduces it in a listening room. "Air" refers to the simulacral recreation, by whatever means, of that original spaciousness. |
My first 'high end' speaker were the AR 3A's, didn't last long once I heard speakers like Dahlquist DQ 10's, Maggies, Eventually did get the Dahlquists, still have them today, stuck in a closet. Went on to other Carl Marchisotto designs with Alon/Nola, open baffles do air. Had a roommate back in the day with ESS Heils, another airy speaker. I even liked Mirage speaker design back in the day,. No overly precise imaging for me, airy means spaciousness, individualized images projected as three dimensional bubbles without overly precise drawn outlines. |
When I heat air, the depth, width and space between musicians if more apparent. It goes from 2-D to 3-D in a more convincing manner. You get more of a sense of the room or venue it's recorded in. You can sometimes tell the direction of trailing notes since not all room boundaries are equidistant from the performer. In short, with more air, it's more realistic. All the best, |
AI summarizes well:
In hi-fi audio, the term "air" generally refers to the higher frequency sounds that contribute to a sense of openness and clarity in music. Here are some key points about what "air" means in this context: 1. **Frequency Range**: "Air" typically encompasses frequencies above 8,000 Hz, often extending to around 12,000 Hz and higher. This range is where the subtle details and nuances of sound can be found, particularly in vocals and instruments [[1]](https://vi-control.net/community/threads/what-exactly-does-air-really-mean.25101/)[[3]](https://gearspace.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/406043-what-air.html). 2. **Sound Characteristics**: The concept of air is associated with soft, natural, and unintrusive high frequencies. It enhances the perception of space and depth in audio, allowing listeners to "look further" into the sound without overwhelming them with harshness. This quality can make recordings feel more lifelike and immersive [[3]](https://gearspace.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/406043-what-air.html). 3. **Recording Techniques**: In practical terms, achieving "air" in recordings can involve specific techniques and equipment. For instance, using certain microphone preamps or EQ settings can help emphasize these high frequencies, making vocals shine and adding presence to instruments like guitars and drums [[2]](https://us.focusrite.com/scarlett/what-is-air-and-how-does-it-help-make-better-recordings). 4. **Perception of Clarity**: The presence of air in audio can lead to a clearer soundstage, where individual elements of a mix are more distinguishable. This clarity is often described as removing a "veil" from the sound, enhancing the overall listening experience [[3]](https://gearspace.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/406043-what-air.html). In summary, "air" in hi-fi audio refers to the high-frequency elements that contribute to clarity, depth, and a sense of space in music, making it an important aspect of high-quality sound reproduction. --- |
What wonderful responses! I thank you for them. I read an audio review recently (sorry, I'm 78 and I can't remember where I've heard various things) in which the reviewer said that he was tired of "accurate" speakers in which the sounds are too well defined. I think he was talking about very highly regarded speakers. When I purchased my Sonus Faber Olympica Nova 5 speakers, I compared them to Vienna Acoustics Beethoven speakers costing about $15K. The instruments sounded accurate and I had no real complaint except that each instrument and note seemed to exist singularly on its own. When I heard the Sonus Faber I heard a more blended sound. Perhaps I could say that all the air was filled with sound, whereas the Vienna Acoustics were so accurate about insturment placement, the notes seemed to come out of a black background. I have read reviewers who love speakers that produce a black background. I have no idea if they are talking about what I am talking about, but I see these two attributes in opposition. When I go to any kind of concert, classical, jazz, or rock, all the air around me is filled with sound. The air is alive with the sound of music. Very excellent speakers, however, seem to want to pinpoint sounds and the edges of sounds (attacks and diminishes). Although I am impressed by these speakers, to me they don't sound like music. On the other hand, when I inherited my Hovland Radia amp, I was using a McCormack DNA-1 upgraded to the top level. I thought it was a wonderful amp because it filled the room with sound. It kind of produced a wall of sound. When I compared it to the Hovland Radia, the McCormack seemed better. I was about to sell the Hovland, when slowly my ear began to hear how the Hovland was able to bring out inner sounds that the McCormack could not. As Mapman said in his excellent response, "The presence of air in audio can lead to a clearer soundstage, where individual elements of a mix are more distinguishable. This clarity is often described as removing a "veil" from the sound, enhancing the overall listening experience." I think it was the first time I ever really understood what air meant in audio terms. And I am very happy that I have now found it. |
No doubt speakers do differ in openness, spaciousness, entire system, room, quality of AC and the recordings themselves can greatly lend or take away from air/spaciousness.
When talking about black backgrounds, this comes mostly from the electronics, black backgrounds are the result of lowered noise floor which results in higher resolution/transparency. With lowered noise floors we hear far more of the 'inner' details, it is generally these 'fine' details which heighten the sense of spaciousness/air. Source extracts it from recording, pre/amps job to not lose any of that info, speaker reproduces it accurately, room allows speaker to reach full potential. In the final analysis it is not the speaker that produces air/spaciousness, the speaker can only reproduce what it's fed, some have greater potential to maximize what rest of system feeds it. |
Beat's me (well sort of) but I very much enjoyed your post. So thanks. To Err Is Human. To Jane Eyre is to Charlotte Brontë. AIR was a cool group.( remember La femme d'argent? ) To Air is to audiophile? |
I feel the same...
|
When talking about black backgrounds, this comes mostly from the electronics, black backgrounds are the result of lowered noise floor which results in higher resolution/transparency. With lowered noise floors we hear far more of the 'inner' details, it is generally these 'fine' details which heighten the sense of spaciousness/air. Source extracts it from recording, pre/amps job to not lose any of that info, speaker reproduces it accurately, room allows speaker to reach full potential. In the final analysis it is not the speaker that produces air/spaciousness, the speaker can only reproduce what it's fed, some have greater potential to maximize what rest of system feeds it. SNS I have no idea if my electronics produce a black background with a lowered noise floor. Even when I turn on my tubed phono preamp my speakers sound dead quiet. When I stream music I hear no background noise. Of course, when I play a record there is always some source noise even on my quietest records. And yet to my ears, records have more air than streaming does. I can hear more deeply into the music. The instruments sound more present and true to life. I guess that is a good part of what I think of as air. I have listened and compared very good speakers with the same front-end electronics and one sounds like it has more air than the other. Not because one provides more inner detail, but I would say that one is more analytical and the other more musical. For example, I think my Sonus Fabers tend toward the musical end of the spectrum and Dynaudio or Vienna Acoustics more toward the analytical. And I can totally understand why someone would prefer Dynaudio and Vienna Acoustics over Sonus Faber. Yet audiophiles seem to drift one way or the other. Another example, before Krell was off the market I really didn't like it. A friend let me borrow his Krell 250 while he was on vacation and I put it in the place of my McCormack DNA-1. The Krell had stronger bass and I think more definition. But I felt the McCormack was much more musical and the Krell was dry. Yet many people swore by Krell. There is something going on that I can't put my finger on, but I do think audiophiles tend toward one end of the spectrum or the other. Musical versus analytical? Air versus exactness? I don't know how to define it. |
Cey, I think you are right about smooth upper frequency extension, but I think there is something also to the way the musical notes sound on both uppers and mids. I'm not sure about bass. People love tube gear because it brings "bloom" to the sound, which to me means that the notes are voluptuous, as opposed to lean. (Sorry about the metaphors, but I can't find other words.) In a way, the notes have inner air, and bass notes count too, I guess. I think of a jazz bass where the notes seem to float on air as opposed to cutting the air. So hard to explain. Perhaps a system with air embraces the listener rather than impresses the listener with its strength. I'm trying to compare very good systems in my mind. A Wilson speaker or Dytnaudio speaker which I think of as more lean and analytical versus Sonus Faber or other speakers that people think of as "musical." They both could have "smooth upper frequency extension," but one would seem to float on air and the other to penetrate the air. And that's the best I can do at describing what I think I am talking about. |
Low noise floor is an electronic design concept... We can improve it in a various way by filtering DC for example.. By grounding our pieces of gear .... by protecting it from EMI interference...
"Air" between notes and instrument is the fluid quality, a respiration, uniting but separating the instruments and the music as an organized perceived whole by the listener... A better grounding of the gear pieces for example can increase the perception of "air" between instruments already in the recording because of a lower noise floor... But acoustics control of the speakers/ room pressure zones distribution can contribute to the spatial perceived attributes of sound as it must be translated optimally for my ears in my room ...
When listening to an opera in my room if i perceive the singing actors walking and if i see them when singing turning their head it is because the original recording acoustics is well translated in my own room acoustics parameters there is "air" between the singers and the instruments, a space of their own but linked to the others, because they were recorded in the same room now transported in my room and perceived as if i was there....
|
I agree with what most have said. Generally, an open high end that doesn't sound muffled or rolled off at all. |
When can talk about frequencies associated with what many people might call “air” but for me it comes down to a type of perception and not necessarily a particular frequency range. Because I’ve heard some speakers that don’t go stratospherically high in frequencies, but still have a sense of “ air.”
What that generally means to me is a sense of openness to the sound, generally aided by a type of high frequency character.
So for instance, if I’m listening to recordings on quite a number of systems there’s a distinct difference between the frequencies and the recording, and the frequencies of how things sound in the real world, represented by the room I’m in.
You play a track where somebody is tapping some drum rims or the symbols or clapping. And then in the same room, I snapped my own fingers or lightly clap my hands. This reveals a difference, where the sound coming from the speakers sounds “ canned” or sort of artificially limited in the high frequencies, which distinguishes the sound from a “ live happening now” presentation.
In other words, snapping my fingers are clapping in the room or hearing about talking in the room there is no sense at all anything but the sound occurring in open air.
So when a speaker has a proper type of airiness I’m thinking of, the high frequencies essentially dissolve into and meld with the sense of the air in the room. No sense of artificial rolloff or canned sound. The atmosphere of the recording merges with the sense of air in the room I’m listening in, And so there is a more realistic “ that’s a real instrument happening in front of me in real acoustic space” sensation that also means that the timbre of the sound appears to have all the harmonics in the upper frequencies, to describe a realistic depiction of that instrument.
The thing is that this doesn’t necessarily have to be the type of stratospheric frequencies one might associate with a super tweeter or something. It can come with the dispersion characteristics of the speaker or what is doing in the lower treble… what counts is the perception that the sound I’m hearing is unfettered and that I am sharing the same acoustic space.
(just to be clear: I’m not talking about getting everything to sound like it’s in the room with me. When I have dialed in my system properly, which includes paying attention to the acoustics of my room, what I get is more sense of being transported to the real space of a recording) |
prof, great explanation. On my system, I am sometimes suprised by a sound like drumsticks banging against each other. It comes from somewhere behind and off to the right of the right speaker. It will surprise me and I will look up from what I'm doing, like, huh? Where did that come from? Was it on my stereo or was it real? This happened sometimes when I had far less expensive speakers, but happens a lot with my new speakers. |
fynnegan, I listen to music recorded in studios, live in concert, and in concert halls. The more I think about it, however, music is air. Waves traveling through air, but the air itself makes up the waves. When we listen to music live, it fills the air. It's all over the place, whether amplified or not. I think there is some sense that it's part of the air. Somehow, I think, as music is turned into an electronic signal, it loses that sense of being part of the air. It becomes a note from an instrument traveling through the air of our listening rooms. But it no longer seems to be part of the space as it does when it's live. A good system, I think, when a good recording is played through it, restores the sense that music is part of the place--part of the air through which it's traveling. And it can make a listener feel "there." When I listen to rock n' roll amplified, at some place like the Hollywood Bowl, the sense of air is not really something I'm interested in. You're right in the sense that a studio is not built for an audience of people listening--it's built for recording music. And now that you mention it, I don't hear "air" in most studio recordings. Many of them are rock and I am more interested in being blown over by the music coming like one great wave. Although I do have a few albums recorded in a studio by audiophiles, like "Orpheus" by the Isao Suzuki Trio. On the back cover of the album they show where the instruments were and where the mikes were place in order to get a sense of air. Of course, most other studio albums don't go to that trouble. |
My definition of "air" in a recording is a sense of space around the instruments. I have noticed that spatial cues captured in a recording around 500hz - 3khz make the recording sound wider or deeper and frequencies above that make the recording sound smaller to me, regardless of the time delay of any reverberation. In other words, if the cymbals or vocal sibilants are very bright/sharp, my brain says "this is close by". It does seem that vinyl crosstalk helps accentuate a sense of air in a recording. And that sharp decays of a transient in digital recordings makes it sound a little airless. Early digital often (not always) sounds unnaturally bright and has the sharp transient decay so "two strikes against". As much as I love Donald Fagen's 'The Nightfly' on cd, there is little to no sense of space in that recording even when compared to earlier Steely Dan releases. Soundstream System orchestral recordings before 1985 have a decent sense of scale and air, but they are 50khz digital. It's a credit to the engineers that they set up those mics properly. These days digital can sound as large or as small as you want, because modern processing is more accurate to the mic capture, and a talented engineer will take into account capturing the depth as well as the amplitude and tone of any given performance. I'm lucky that today I have speakers capable of decently recreating the recording spatial cues, but they weren't cheap (a floorstanding pair of Sonus Faber). |
thom_oz, I also have floor standing Sonus Fabers and they weren’t cheap, either, but I stayed in the Olympica Nova range. Doublte that price was too steep for me. Okay, so I know that Diana Krall is mostly shunned on the jazz thread, but her CDs are well recorded. All of her CDs sound good. The Sonus Fabers have brought so much more air into my listening room. I previously owned a pair of Goldenear 2+ speakers. I thought they were good, but I'd never owned a really good pair of speakers. I feel as though there is so much more space in the soundstage that I could walk around in there. |