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. 

audio-b-dog

@audio-b-dog 

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 BrontĂ«.

AIR was a cool group.( remember La femme d'argent? )

To Air is to audiophile?

I feel the same...

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. 

There are only so many ways reviewers can say a system sounds good/great so they started using different descriptors and often words that have no meaning in this context, but it sounds smart and unique.

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. 

smooth upper frequency extension with the ability to clearly sound out delicate hi freq details with respect to a wide and deep soundstage