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! |
Grainless, Shameless and Painless!!! |
Stereo replay never actually reproduces a musical event.
The only thing you can hope for is a credible illusion.
But it can be a very nice illusion.
----Bruno Putzeys
Rok2id,
I've also had the pleasure of someone thinking there was a live event at my place with the window open or the door ajar. Not all the time, usually a solo instrument (guitar, piano) and the grin on my face was priceless.
All the best,
Nonoise |
I only started about half a year ago to help me get to sleep due to a shoulder injury. All I can take is about two fingers and I'm done for the night. About twice a week does it for me. I just can't stand taking medications.
Apparently you have a good supply of gifts for the foreseeable future.
All the best,
Nonoise |
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. |
Sorry about the double post!
I don't know how it happened. |
Very fair, indeed.
The times when it sounds real don't happen as often as we'd like so one must revel in the throes when in its presence, knowing it's fleeting at best.
More wine?
All the best,
Nonoise |
I tend to agree that we may underestimate our ability to remember what things sound like. Our senses are powerful tools when tuned in and assessed objectively. Regardless, each person's individual senses are all we each can really depend on. |
'LIVE' has nothing to do with how good something sounds or all the other adjectives used here to describe stereo systems. LIVE is your local band at the friday night football game or Your kids trying to learn piano or clarinet.
Can a system sound LIVE. Yes. But your brain has to be tricked into thinmking it's live music. You can't think it's live if you are sitiing in a room right in front of the system. Your eyes will override your ears, and the brain will always side with the eyes.
Several years ago in Germany, me and a friend were walking thru the parking lot to the PX in Nurnberg. We heard this band, and saw a crowd down at the other end of the parking lot. They sounded great. We went to see and listen and discovered that it was not a band at all, but the SONY Representative demostrating his speakers. The kind with square or rectangular flat drivers. I think the power amp was phase linear. Out in the open, no room or walls. I thought it was live right up until I could see. Then my eyes/brain restored reality. Still sounded good, just not live. But I was so impressed (former trumpet player), I went right into the PX and bought the LP! Maynard Ferguson's 'Conquistador"
btw, the reason he was outside was that, no way the store would allow that volume level inside.
I have never thought my system sounded live, but I have a few times thought that someone just listening from outside might think it was live.
Cheers. |
Very fair, indeed.
The times when it sounds real don't happen as often as we'd like so one must revel in the throes when in its presence, knowing it's fleeting at best.
More wine?
All the best,
Nonoise |
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? |
Clear as an unmuddied lake, clear as a sky of azure blue (loved A Clockwork Orange).
Very few recordings go for the real, live event. Even those that are sold as live.
All that mixing and effects introduced to what the engineer, artist or label is after. Esoteric labels like MA and Mapleshade, which use minimalist recording techniques, come to mind and there are others that can be used as a reference of sorts.
I remember back when I got my Legacy Classics. The owner of the pair I auditioned knew Steve Hoffman and he had a copy of a Nat King Cole CD that was mastered incorrectly. Hoffman did it as real as possible and the CD came out only to be pulled from the shelves by the Nat King Cole estate since they had to have a certain amount of reverb in them. That CD made it sound like Nat was in the room with you. The one with the reverb didn't. Boy did I try to find a copy of that CD.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Hi guys - some great comments. A couple more of my own, in response.
Bryon wrote: "Admittedly, these two kinds of accuracy are different, but they have something important in common: They both require the listener to compare what he hears to SOMETHING UNKNOWN. " One of these kinds of accuracies Bryon mentioned was "Accuracy of the RECORDING relative to the LIVE EVENT."
My comment on this is that in many cases (though of course not all), for a performing musician, unlike for the vast majority of listeners, this accuracy is NOT an unknown. This ties in with some of Onhwy61's comments: "To state the obvious, a highly skilled person will have more informed insights than a lay person. At the same time it is still just speculation and even highly skilled engineers or listeners can be wrong about what is going on in a recording." One can easily add the performers to that list.
I would also agree with Nonoise and Mapman when they say that many listeners do underestimate their ability to remember what things sound like, especially when one tries very consciously to make this effort (for instance, attending a concert live in a hall in which you have some recordings of, and then listening to the recordings afterwards to compare).
That said, another point I wanted to comment on - first, my comments that Bryon quoted for reference:
NoNoise summed up what we all wish was the case nicely: "live music is the reference for all things audio. Hopefully, during the recording process that live reference is adhered to."
Unfortunately, this is almost never the case, and most audiophiles have no idea just how much this reference is totally ignored by most recording engineers, even when they are recording a live performance in an excellent hall.
Bryon wrote:
I agree with these comments. The observation I'd like to make is that these comments assume that recordings can be judged on the basis of their accuracy.
Though I understand the point you are making in your post, I would certainly quibble with this statement a little. My position would be that a recording can never truly capture a live event, so therefore it would never be completely accurate, which is why "neutrality" is a very subjective concept, not an absolute. As I said before, this does not mean it is not a useful concept, for an individual listener.
The point I was trying to make is that many audiophiles assume that most engineers are indeed trying to exactly recapture a live event, when in fact, the vast majority would not even think of trying - it wouldn't even occur to them. Their goal is to make their recordings "sound good." Especially with the digitally done recording nowadays, all sorts of alterations (such as added reverb, to name one of the most common) are routinely made even to recordings done in the finest of acoustic environments. No two engineers would make recordings that sounded alike of the same live event. Judging which one came closer to the actual sound between two excellent ones would be very subjective - there are simply far too many variables involved, which different people will rank differently in their priorities.
I don't write anywhere near as clearly as Bryon, but hopefully the above is reasonably clear. |
Understood.
I've read where Steve Hoffman stated that old master tapes that were made off of tube equipment cannot be simply remastered with silicon based equipment. It will not sound right. Various types of software has to be used. And it has to be done right, according to what the engineer thinks is right.
The best we can do, being laymen, is be as true to the recording as possible, recreating it as accurately as possible. That is not to say that we can't recognize when something is right, or accurate or neutral sounding, based on our memories, faulty as they are said to be.
Manipulation can work if intended and done properly. I don't believe that's the intention of the recording engineer and another story.
But to recall or recognize when something is accurate, based on memory, should be easy enough. A recording of a lion, behind me, wouldn't scare me but a real one, not heard decades ago, would make me sh*t my pants.
Trying to convince others here that what we are hearing is where the rubber misses the road. I still say that there are enough good examples of neutrality that get through on a recording to make it convincing.
All the best,
Nonoise |
I understand the point made above on speculating about a recording and drawing conclusions about neutrality. I've talked with recording engineers about records and been amazed about the insights they have into how they think the recording was made. To state the obvious, a highly skilled person will have more informed insights than a lay person. At the same time it is still just speculation and even highly skilled engineers or listeners can be wrong about what is going on in a recording. Any conclusions drawn from speculation are very suspect.
If cognitive psychology has taught us anything it is that memory is highly variable and sensory perception is easily manipulated. One of the most common phrases stated on internet audio forums is "trust your ears". I'm not disputing the statement, but "trust, but verify" makes even more sense. |
I tend to agree that we may underestimate our ability to remember what things sound like. Our senses are powerful tools when tuned in and assessed objectively. Regardless, each person's individual senses are all we each can really depend on. |
I especially like this part of Drubin's response:
"draws you into the music, makes the emotional connection." |
Great conversation we are having here.
May I add this?
This neutrality we are talking about, ie: the absence of audible inaccuracies, be it captured at the live event, at the recorded event, or at the listener event (our system), can be ascertained better than we give our senses credit for.
All of our lives are spent honing these senses so it becomes second nature. Evolution has its advantages: it works.. Our aural memories are, I feel, much more accurate than we give them credit for.
I've always taken exception to reviewers who qualify a review with the caveat that it's been too long for a valid comparison when we've always used memory sensed events to make opinions. Why stop with audio? (maybe as a basis for an argument?) I feel most reviewers don't want to be held liable for a variety of reasons (you said this, now that) yet they can always be counted on to wax poetically over an older system they had, how they should have kept it, etc.
Therefore, I feel that we can know (recognize) accuracy when we hear it. When it's real enough to make us stop and take notice, to look over there, to visualize the event, to sit transfixed, spellbound, or hooked for the moment.
Doubting Thomas we should not be. The neutrality we are hearing is there. The frustrating thing is the differing amounts of neutrality we hear. The clues and cues are there, in one form or another, both in amounts small and large. It's just that the entire event isn't entirely neutral (I believe that to be impossible) which adds to frustration and doubt, and leads us to tinker, tweak and upgrade.
Certainty aside, I'm certain of this. :-)
All the best,
Nonoise |
07-14-12: Bryoncunningham
In spite of the fact that the live event and the recording are, to some extent, Unknowns, many audiophiles believe they can reasonably speculate about them. Those speculations are, of course, uncertain. But their uncertainty doesn't mean that they are altogether unreliable. Speculations about accuracy become more reliable through experience, either experience with live music or experience with playback systems.
When audiophiles form judgments about the accuracy of a recording or the accuracy of a system, they are invariably judgments about the degree of audible inaccuracies. And judgments about the degree of audible inaccuracies are, by definition, judgments about neutrality. As in the Neutrality thread of 2009, I am in complete agreement with Bryon's comments and analysis, as summed up nicely in these two paragraphs. His well constructed analysis seems to me to be self-evident. Best regards, -- Al |
Hi Learsfool - I value your opinion, and I always look forward to reading your posts. We've discussed the concept of 'neutrality' many times on many threads, and we can never seem to agree on what it means or whether it's a real characteristic or a figment of audiophiles' imaginations. I understand 'neutrality' to mean 'the degree of absence of colorations.' And I understand 'colorations' to mean 'audible inaccuracies.' So my view on neutrality is simply that... 1. Systems can be judged on the basis of the degree of audible inaccuracies. 2. The reduction of audible inaccuracies often (but not always) results in greater listener enjoyment. Statement (2) is of course subjective. Some people enjoy audible inaccuracies. And people are entitled to enjoy whatever they like. Statement (1) is what you and I have debated over and over. I'm not trying to argue the topic of neutrality all over again. I just want to make an observation that I believe is relevant to the topic of this thread, i.e. "What is a high end stereo supposed to sound like?" In your post on 7/12, you said... NoNoise summed up what we all wish was the case nicely: "live music is the reference for all things audio. Hopefully, during the recording process that live reference is adhered to."
Unfortunately, this is almost never the case, and most audiophiles have no idea just how much this reference is totally ignored by most recording engineers, even when they are recording a live performance in an excellent hall. I agree with these comments. The observation I'd like to make is that these comments assume that recordings can be judged on the basis of their accuracy. That is, the accuracy of the recording relative to the live event. That is one of two kinds of “accuracy” that appear in these discussions… 3. Accuracy of the RECORDING relative to the LIVE EVENT. 4. Accuracy of the SYSTEM relative to the RECORDING. Admittedly, these two kinds of accuracy are different, but they have something important in common: They both require the listener to compare what he hears to SOMETHING UNKNOWN. For the first kind of accuracy, the Unknown is the live event. For the second kind of accuracy, the Unknown is the recording. When you listen to a recording of a performance you never attended, or even a studio recording, you often say to yourself, "This recording doesn’t sound right. This isn't what the performance sounded like." You are confident of that even though you weren't there at the live event. That is exactly the same leap of logic that must be made when you listen to a system and say, "This system doesn’t sound right. This isn't what the recording sounds like." In spite of the fact that the live event and the recording are, to some extent, Unknowns, many audiophiles believe they can reasonably speculate about them. Those speculations are, of course, uncertain. But their uncertainty doesn't mean that they are altogether unreliable. Speculations about accuracy become more reliable through experience, either experience with live music or experience with playback systems. When audiophiles form judgments about the accuracy of a recording or the accuracy of a system, they are invariably judgments about the degree of audible inaccuracies. And judgments about the degree of audible inaccuracies are, by definition, judgments about neutrality. Bryon |
Mapman, you have hit the nail on the head with your last post. Everyone (not just the recording engineers) has their own idea of what the "absolute sound," or whatever you want to call it, is; in many cases, this has absolutely nothing to do with how music actually sounds in a real performance space.
Same thing goes for the concept of "neutrality" as applied to audio reproduction equipment, despite many very fine attempts to define this concept on this board, notably by Bryon Cunningham. Equipment designers do almost always have a very specific sound in mind for their equipment. Who is to say which is more "neutral?" This judgment will of course be heavily influenced by what one's concept of the "absolute sound" is. Since this concept cannot be exactly defined, "neutrality" cannot either.
This is not to say these concepts are irrelevant, but to say that they are relevant only to how each individual listener (or those having the exact same preferences) defines them for themselves. |
|
since there are many "high end" components, combinations of such components will configure stereo systems which sound different. thus there is no "high end sound", but rather many "high end" "sounds".
what is more important is that the owner enjoys what he hears. |
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. |
I suspect audio engineers want their work to stand out just like most pros so they all do their own thing as best we can.
Recording what a live performance sounds like was cool and cutting edge back in the 50s but probably pretty passe and non distinguishing these days.
They are artists in theif own right like Monet, Picasso, etc. Artists create, not reproduce in general. |
NoNoise summed up what we all wish was the case nicely: "live music is the reference for all things audio. Hopefully, during the recording process that live reference is adhered to."
Unfortunately, this is almost never the case, and most audiophiles have no idea just how much this reference is totally ignored by most recording engineers, even when they are recording a live performance in an excellent hall. |
As has been pointedly pointed out, live music is the reference for all things audio. Hopefully, during the recording process that live reference is adhered to.
Once the recording is made, it becomes, de facto, the only reference we have.
Keeping that in mind, that recording can only sound so good and all your hifi stereo has to do is faithfully reproduce what the recording engineers had in mind.
It's sad that we are prisoners to the whims of engineers and market forces, limiting the potential that lies in that CD, LP or download.
I don't think we give our stereo systems enough credit for what they do. We constantly upgrade, fiddle and tweak and it brings to mind what the dragon sees when it's chasing its tail: a fleeting image, a moving target that looks different every time he turns his head around.
All the best,
Nonoise |
I would say the sound of live music is relevant as a reference for what music really sounds like but the reality is that a recording (and the venue we play it in) is not the same as a live performance.
I do not have a problem saying that the system should be "accurate" to the recording.
I also have no problem saying that a high end stereo may do certain things to these ends very well but not others. Better in that case practically to be an error of omission I would say. That way small but otherwise good monitors for example can rightfully be regarded as "high end". |
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. |
I agree that if your rig is capable of revealing the differences recording to recording with great nuance, for better or for worse, then that is most likely what a high end stereo should sound like.
Trying to make all recordings sound similarly wonderful is the sure road to audio hell. I'm pretty sure I said that or something essentially equivalent somewhere here on the forums a good while back also......
Doing that AND making it generally sound like a good simulation of something live can be done in addition but doing both together with many recordings is an even bigger challenge. |
Reflecting back on something so long ago is always fun. FWIW I'm still very comfortable with the term 'resolution' I preferred as expressed in my first post. But we need not go back there again. :-) |
I agree, an interesting article. I enjoyed the criteria for diagnosing audio nervosa, but I was even more interested in their proposed "Comparison by Contrast" method of evaluating audio equipment... ...play a larger number of recordings of vastly different styles and recording technique on two different systems to hear which system reveals more differences between the recordings. According to Norwitz and Qvortrup, whichever system reveals larger differences among recordings is the more accurate system. And the more accurate the system, the more it conveys a recording's uniqueness... Only if your audio system is designed to be as accurate as possible -- that is, only if it is dedicated to high contrast reproduction -- can it hope to recover the uniqueness of any recorded musical performance. I wish I had known about that article when I wrote my very first post on Audiogon, in which I said... How do you judge your system's neutrality?
HereÂ’s an answer IÂ’ve been kicking around: Your system is becoming more neutral whenever you change a system element and you get the following results:
(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse. That comment ignited a firestorm of argument reaching 396 posts. It was a bit of a shock for a total newbie. N & Q use the word 'accuracy,' whereas I used the word 'neutrality,' but our meanings are essentially identical, as is our proposed method for evaluating systems. It's an interesting case of Multiple Discovery. Bryon |
Socrates,
That's a fantastic article. One of the best I've seen on the topic.
Audio hell indeed! Stay away!!!
I hope to see more and more "born again" audiophiles after reading that! |
Well, if its expensive, it should also sound pretty darn good.
Aren't expensive things supposed to be better? |
Maybe an expensive stereo is supposed to sound like your monies loss is your ears gain.
There is no answer save the one that makes you happy carping about it. Cost relative to enjoyment is always thought of by those of us who can't afford an expensive system while those who can afford it probably don't give a tinker's fart about it.
They just went out and bought what they think they should have at the same kind of emporium that sells them their kind of car, glasses, spirits, cigars, clothing, watches, etc.
They don't shop in the same places that average people do and I bet their systems, on average, probably don't sound much better (if at all) then one of our well sorted out ones.
All the best,
Nonoise |
I will simply reframe the question. What is an EXPENSIVE stereo SUPPOSED to sound like.
Again he didn't ask what a perfect stereo should sound like?
And in my view either expensive or just really good it better make some sounds. Not nothing for sure. |
Someone forwarded this link to me, after I posted my comments. Sorry if it's a duplicate ...
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm |
I also agree with The Duke! |
If it sounds good, it IS good! - Duke Ellington |
|
High end is supposed to sound like real live unamplified music- Natural, mostly free of elecronic artifacts on well recorded material.
Instead what we get(99% of time,regardless of price)is tonal freqency balance that is generally 10s to 100s of Hz shifted to the right compared to the real thing, making sound thinner than actually is real life. Also I notice that the timing is off between fundamentals and overtones/undertones. Combine the two and you have unnatural presentation. I don't know why is that. Is it electronic artifacts that you can't avoid or recording can't pick up everything?
Enter,add/subtract your own colors that makes it as close to 'realistic' as possible for YOU. |
Wow Cdc, I bet that guy's system sounds fantastic! |
Bryoncunningham, you make some good points. I knew one guy who was all into soundstaging and money was no object. He looked into Audio Physic with their "walk in" soundstaging but ended up with some Brentworth single driver and a Wytec SET in a HUGE room. He had the best "You are there" thing on live recordings I've ever heard as there was little room interaction. I never could reproduce it because my room is too small. |
|
07-07-12: Learsfool
Hi guys - I wanted to chime in on the conversation about recording spaces for a moment that Bryon and Mapman are having. I don't think that anyone has made the point here that one would almost never want their music to sound like the actual recording space, if we are assuming that this space is a recording studio. These are very dead environments that do not enhance the music whatsoever, meaning how the music actually sounds in that space as it is actually being played. Hi Learsfool - When I said... ...the playback space must create an OMNIDIRECTIONAL PRESENTATION, because thatÂ’s what the recording space always sounds like... ...I was referring to "recording spaces" outside a studio environment, e.g., halls. I understand that fewer and fewer recordings are actually done outside the studio these days. I am also aware of the process by which studio recordings are created. I can't remember if I've mentioned this to you, but I studied with professional recording engineers for a brief but intense period (about 3 months), during which I learned how to capture recordings on a Nagra with a variety of microphones, edit those recordings in ProTools, and mix them on a Euphonix 5-B. It was a steep learning curve, but a very rewarding experience. During that time I spent a lot of time in recording and re-recording studios, so I'm familiar with their typical acoustics, which as you say, are dead. My observations about the importance of creating a playback space whose ambient cues emulate the ambient cues of the recording space were NOT intended to apply to studio recording spaces. Having said that, IMO there is a corollary consideration for studio recordings, namely that, in an ideal world, the ambient cues of the playback space would emulate the ambient cues of the "virtual space" created by the re-recording engineers. In the real world, that is of course difficult to achieve, partly because of the wide variety of virtual spaces made possible by modern mixing techniques and partly because we weren't present at the mix to know how things sounded. That is another reason why, IMO, it is valuable for a playback space to be neutral. Bryon |
i don't think there is a definitive answer. after all "high end" systems do not all sound the same.
so i would say as have others, it should remind you of the sound of the timbre of instruments, and it should please the owner of the stereo system. |
Hi guys - I wanted to chime in on the conversation about recording spaces for a moment that Bryon and Mapman are having. I don't think that anyone has made the point here that one would almost never want their music to sound like the actual recording space, if we are assuming that this space is a recording studio. These are very dead environments that do not enhance the music whatsoever, meaning how the music actually sounds in that space as it is actually being played. What these types of rooms do enhance is the recording engineer's ability to make the recording sound exactly how he wants it to (which very often has nothing to do with how the musicians want it to sound, by the way). This point we have discussed on other threads, but it is certainly applicable here.
A related point, which has also been discussed on other threads, is that in general, musicians normally choose fidelity to the performance vs. fidelity to the recording of that performance (a whole bunch of recordings out there really suck, even if the performances are excellent, and why the heck would you want to be faithful to such a recording??). I think Elizabeth touches on this when she speaks of "slighty euphonic coloring." Most musicians want their systems to sound as lifelike as possible (timbres first and foremost), as opposed to trying to eliminate all "distortions." A whole lot of folks who attempt to do the latter end up with systems that throw the baby out with the bathwater, or lose the forest for the trees. Neither the recording nor the system it is played back on will ever be an exact match to the performance, as others have correctly pointed out here. |
The one point that high end really just means expensive is important. I don't know what just any expensive audio gear should sound like? It is not really a great question. What should an expensive car be like, fast comfortable, made of carbon fiber, etc all that matters about the car is what matters to you. You get the point.
The price of the gear, people are trying to elaborate on, which produces the perfect or ideal sound of is sort of irrelevant. The passionate answers are really answering a different question. That question is what is the perfect audio system. It was answered 5 and 6 decades ago with the term hi-fi. If you don't know it means highly like the original.
I happen to agree with Elizabeth it doesn't have to be an exact match, it can sound a little euphonic. that's what makes me happy, and that's all that matters. |
If you don't run screaming from the room when musical passages get complex and if at times you are almost startled out of your seat which makes you grin from ear to ear and the dog flick her ears back and forth ---you are on the right track! |
I agree that highs and lows are nice but overrated. :-)
Most of what is going on in music occurs elsewhere. Highs and lows can be the icing on the cake but not the initial key to basic enjoyment.
I do find that a large 3-D soundstage along with the rest can help with clutter and enable the listener to better discern what is going on in a more detailed and lifelike manner.
OF course, its all relative. ITs similar to where a smaller HD TV with 3-D might suffice in a smaller room or watching from a closer distance whereas a larger screen is needed generally to see the same details from more of a distance. |
