"High-end" has become a euphemism for expensive but I do not necessarily associate that with musically satisfying. I have heard many over the top combinations of equipment that provide an exaggerated, 'hyped up' version of reality that are neither musical nor satisfying and ultimately, aren't really 'systems' in the sense that the parts are working together effectively to create a natural sounding illusion. It may be an illusion that is more attractive, at first, but i think-long term- it would be fatiguing or simply unsatisfying. I suppose some of that is subjective, but often, in showrooms, you are supposed to be 'taken' immediately with how splashy the high frequencies sound and how deep and 'impactful' the bass is and none of this is what you typically hear with real music. There are any number of 'defining' attributes, such as 'imaging,' 'soundstage,' 'dynamics' and 'bandwidth,' but all of these describe attributes, or discrete facets of the sound, not the whole. I'm at a point where everything counts, even though all of it is a trade-off, compared to real music. (I'm not using hard rock as a benchmark, although I like it and listen to it, simply because very little of it is 'real,' in the sense of acoustic instruments or more naturally amplified ones-even in concert- lot's of distortion and over-amped drums and bass; granted a les paul played through a cranked marshall has a certain reality- but it's not the stuff i'd use to listen critically if I were trying to evaluate a system).
At best, we create an illusion that gives a level of musical satisfaction on the widest range of source material and compares favorably to what real instruments of the acoustic variety sound like. An impossible goal but one worth striving for. There are any number of approaches to get there. And i agree, the room is usually the last thing people address, when it should be the first. |
Rok2id touches on something i experienced recently and commented about on another forum. At a Shakespeare Festival here in the Hudson Valley- held in large tent open to the river on one end, pre-recorded tracks of simple music- small string section, or small choral group- sounded absolutely alive, no funny bass abnormalities, no shouty glare ala the typical PA system, although what was being used was fairly modest pro sound support: alot of small self-powered monitors, mounted high in the scaffolding, pointing in various directions, almost in an arc. Point was/is, that to me, it wasn't the 'highest end' equipment and it made me wonder about the effects of the room.
I've been using horns for the past 6 or so years, to get that sort of 'aliveness' and I agree, it is at best an illusion that sometimes works. When it does, that's what it's all about! |
The article from enjoy the music is a good read and thought provoking. I'm not sure I agree with a couple of points , though: first, the notion that what live music sounds like is irrelevant, and second, that the system should be 'accurate' to the recording. As to the first, I think alot of equipment evaluations occur in a 'bubble,' comparing one piece of gear to another. If you spend enough time in clubs listening to acoustic music or bands that are not overamplified through PA systems (of course, with electric guitar and bass, you are going to hear some amplification 'live'), you realize that many expensive hi-fi systems are overblown. Real bass doesn't always have 'slam' and the high frequencies of a cymbal are not always 'splashy' in that super hyped-up way that you hear via some recordings. I do think knowing what real instruments sound like is relevant. Whether that is an accurate benchmark is another question, since unless you were in the venue hearing the performance later reduced to a recording, you cannot judge whether the reproduction approximates that particular live performance. And, of course, there is the recording process in the midst of this as well. An awful lot of stuff is closely miked and multi-tracked, so you get an artificially created sound. Granted, if the system is reproducing that accurately, you are going to hear that artificiality more clearly. (Different acoustic from the vocal booth, the sound of different mikes or their limitations, etc.) Trying to determine if the system accurately reproduces what is on the recording presents the same difficulty as determining what the 'original' performance sounded like in the studio (if indeed, there was a performance, rather than a bunch of different tracks being overlaid on top of each other at different times).
Me, I quit listening for particular attributes, like 'soundstaging,' or 'definition,' or 'full bandwidth.' As I mentioned above, these are only different facets of the reproduction system. Many systems can do one or several of these things well, and may satisfy a listener who is focused on that particular attribute, e.g. 'soundstage' or 'image,'' but that, to me, is not necessarily the equivalent of delivering a fully satisfying musical experience into my listening room. None of us can discount the effects of our room, even if we have spent considerable sums having the room designed and built by professionals. So, at the end of the day, does it sound lively, natural, musical and engaging? I've heard limited bandwidth systems that can engage on that level that suffer from limitations in other attributes, but are more musically satisfying. Is that accurate? Doubtful. |
One thing i have been striving for recently (I go in waves of interest on hi-fi,
right now i am 'back in') is to have 'normal' records, i.e., standard pressings
of stuff, sound good, rather than just the tried and true audiophile tested
records. I've taken a serious interest in going back to older pop stuff from
the 60's and 70's as well as jazz, blues and classical records. I will still buy
the occasional 'audiophile' record- sometimes it's unavoidable because the
standard pressing is so bad (read: Lost Highway pressing of Shelby
Lynne's Dusty record or the Junior Wells Hoodoo Man Blues), but alot of
the old Warner Bros and Columbia 'standard issue' records can sound
great. I've been able to enjoy the music more, and worry less about how
good the system sounds. But, I'm at a point where the system is pretty
mature right now, no overwhelming needs, other than a new room! (Soon
to come). PS: I'm still not entirely happy with the bass, but I'm hoping that
will get sorted as part of a new room.
Good thread. |
Speaking of wine, I don't drink anymore, and my wife has cases moldering in the basement. We went to a birthday party for a young friend last night who just turned 40 and i said, 'dear, why don't you pull out one of those older bottles collecting dust.' She pulled out a case of 1989 Chateau Palmer and we wrapped up a bottle for him as a gift. We paid close to nothing at the time for that case. It apparently still drinks well, according to grape reports. Our friend was delighted. |
So, is it fair to say that, since we are rarely in a position to compare a recording of a live event with the live event (even having been there depends on memory and seating location) and studio recordings are typically manipulated, that the ultimate test of a good system is how real the instruments sound, compared to our experience of what such instruments sound like in a live environment? |
It's impossible to define an emotional response, because it is so subjective and cannot be correlated to the normal objective criteria associated with evaluating equipment. Newbee's plight- listening to the system, rather than the music, is a common one- and a trap i have fallen into myself. (My way out of that is to get the system to a level that surpasses my expections, through a combination of equipment selection, room treatment and tweaking and then just sit back and enjoy- sure I do 'reality checks' and sometimes get neurotic- am i hearing a spurious noise, is the VTA right, should i adjust the crossover, but, at least right now, my system is working to its highest level yet, and I can enjoy the music, and worry less about the set-up).
No system is going to reproduce all records with the same level of engagement- that goes back to the earlier comments about how a good system is revealing in the differences it demonstrates between recordings.
I've been around the 'high-end' (i use that term recognizing it is both loaded and meaningless) since the early 70's and have heard expensive systems that are not engaging and modest systems that are. How to predict what combination of components works? Leaving aside the subjective elements of what the listener prefers (more analytical, more romantic, emphasis on soundstaging/bandwidth/etc.), it all comes back to the recognition of a reproducing chain, including the room itself, as part of a system. (You can include within that the recording itself, but we have little control over that).
Get the basics right first, room, good AC power, and then its more in the nature of synergies among the equipment, including the cable. How to do it predictably? Pretty hard. We have a lot of anecdotal information, including on Audiogon, about what components seem to work well with each other.
Despite the ideal that a good amp or good speaker should play equally well with other components, I'm not sure that's true. And, invariably, certain basic choices in equipment are going to dictate the associated equipment and ultimate sound. For example, I'm using horns, not everybody's cup of tea, but apart from all the other 'hi-fi' attributes, i want a sense of 'aliveness' to the system. That in turn dictates the kind of amp that best suits the speaker (an SET tube amp) and so on. Someone else may not want to make the tradeoffs I do, and desire a different set of priorities in what they perceive as ideal.
Whatever the path, the system should engage you. Not on all records- that's too much to ask, given the wide range of quality of different recordings. What's interesting to me is that as I have gotten my system to its best level of performance yet, I can enjoy lesser recordings for their music, even though I can obviously hear the difference between the lesser recording and the 'better' one. |
Map, to paraphrase somebody, i draw the line at swamis. |
This, from Nonoise, has been my experience as well:
It only takes a few bad recordings to make me think that something was overlooked, wrong or missed but when a great recording is used, I'm reassured I made the right choice. There is some lessening of that joy factor when my system can't make every recording sound wonderful but it's only temporary since I also realize that they're just lousy recordings. |
Same experience re slowing down - it sounds less like a mechanical reproduction and more like real instruments playing. Less forced or contrived- as a result, the perceived timing- the stuff 'in between the cracks' is more apparent. This is not 'resolution' or 'transparency' as often used in the audiophile sense, which often takes on a hyper-detailed quality, and is anything but musical. |
NoNoise- you hit upon another aspect of that perceived 'slowness': decay time. Many concentrate on the leading edge, when the back-end of the 'wave' is equally important (and doesn't make for stridency, either). |
