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

There is no air in a recording studio. It only exists in reverberate halls. 

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.