Mrtennis, true.
We all got into this hobby just for the enjoyment of being able to enjoy music for musics sake.
It's only when we learned of better ways to achieve that goal that led us down the path of our present condition.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Since we have now defined what a high end system sounds like, maybe we can decide when or at what price point does the high end begin. For instance, for a system consisting of speakers, amps and a cd player, assuming an adeqate room and wire etc..., using MSRP for new equipment, how cheaply can you enter the 'high-end'? |
Thanks for the responses. I'll admit to being pretty confused right now. On the one hand, my experience and that of many people I know confirm a stronger emotional response when listening to great music on a great stereo. Perhaps the message is less blurred or perhaps it's a more compelling, less distracting experience. It is a more transcendent experience that adds emotional magic to what was already an emotional response based on the song itself. On the other hand, many smart people here make a case that the total emotional response and the quality of the stereo are independent of one another and they have never experienced a different response to a song whether played on a boom box or a fine stereo. I'm very puzzled since I am now hearing two different things from different groups of people whom I trust. That's OK. No need to resolve the differences. I'm puzzled by many things in life.
That leads me to some questions though. Apart from the pride one achieves by doing things right and solving the difficult problems of compiling a great system, is this hobby strictly a cognitive exercise? Improving systems simply moves toward certain sonic goals without any change in emotional response to the music being played? |
"is this hobby strictly a cognitive exercise? Improving systems simply moves toward certain sonic goals without any change in emotional response to the music being played? "
That's a good question!
I do not see it that way at all but I do not doubt it is sometimes the case.
One instance I recall recently was reading the recent online review of Capital Audiofest last weekend by Stereophile. I definitely got this impression that the writer was listening for some specific sound and that was his main focus for reasons unknown.
I recall in one room at CAF having a total emotional response to a demo that put it way over with me. Yes, part was the material being played but the system delivered in spades. I have read others including the gentleman from Stereophile found that particular system "needed work". Maybe. But no mention of anything resembling my experience. Maybe the wrong music was demoed in these other cases? Perhaps. A lot of demo music there was nice acoustic jazz and classical but nothing familiar that would be more likely to register in a more emotional way with me. |
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. |
HEy, Whart summaarized and nailed it pretty well I would say!
"Get the basics right first, room, good AC power, and then its more in the nature of synergies among the equipment, including the cable. "
HEy, how about also getting the right fuse????
o--o
\__/ |
Map, to paraphrase somebody, i draw the line at swamis. |
Ozfly,
I'd like to tackle your last question re: improving sonics in a system and is it independent of the emotional response, and I'll keep it short. :-)
In my experience, there is a certain amount of joy (Eureka!) when one element of my system takes me higher, closer to that elusive goal of audio nirvana.
That joy is not a constant. It increases along the lines of the hardware improvement and if it's a big enough improvement, the amount of joy I experience can be of a larger amount relative to the former.
It can cure me of my Quixotic endeavors for that last level of improvement that when reached, allows me to simply enjoy the music. I know when I reach it as days, weeks, months will go by and I'm still captivated by what I hear.
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.
That, I believe, is the basis for our addiction in this hobby. It's not the quick fix or endomorphic high we can get from our fast pace, ever changing times which I, for one, am not a part of. Call me old school, better tempered, more disciplined, but the reward factor is still there and like when I correctly repaired an old car for my Dad, back in the days, there was that sense of joy and achievement. Such is the nature of our slow paced hobby and maybe the answer as to why participation is down these days as our youth are out for that quick fix, but that is for another thread.
All the best,
Nonoise |
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. |
You are suppose to hear noise out of two speakers at once. It should be definable as to rock, country, rap, jazz, ect. It should make you hear not the music but the individuals notes played, hear people breathing in the audience, bugs flying around, ect. It should cause you to forget what cut is being played and make you start complaining about the way it was recorded. Also it is suppose to sound like you got to replace something in your set-up. Cables, amp, speakers, just something or you don't have a high posterior steroe. |
I couldn't have said it better: ( http://www.ultrahighendreview.com/the-sound-of-one-hand-clapping/ ) If this is/was a repeat, sorry! |
So, we hear things differently despite similar backgrounds, tastes, interests and all of this with the same appreciation, similar levels of equipment, and a similar quest for the best, be it through better recordings or equipment upgrades.
Yet, for all the similarities, we hear differently due to tastes, interests, equipment and a longing for something better be it through a recording or equipment upgrade.
Makes sense to me. :-)
All the best,
Nonoise |
Here's another thing I've noticed that bears on the OP's question... When things take a leap forward in SQ in my system or one that I'm very familiar with, one of the things I often hear is a subjective "slowing" of the music.
I don't mean the kind of slowing that's associated with slow bass or bad PRaT. The "slowing" I'm talking about is a pleasing effect, though admittedly it's a difficult one to describe.
It's almost as if the recording has been LITERALLY slowed down, except of course there's no pitch shift. It's like the music is somehow more "organized," which I experience as slower.
Dunno. Maybe that's an idiosyncratic experience.
Bryon |
Bryon, I too have noticed that effect. At times I've used it as a measure of whether I've really upgraded. |
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. |
Same here as well. I think that when we hear more of the music being played, we're simply taking in more info as there is more to the beginning and end of each note, making it seem longer when in fact the same amount of time passes but we absorb more, process more, appreciate more and since we are used to a particular piece of music, it begs comparison.
If one were to time a particular piece of music and then go back and add more instrumental playing, in the same time frame, I think it would have the same effect. We'd be processing more info, or in the case of hearing a recording better, that subtle effect would give the same results.
Or something like that.
All the best,
Nonoise |
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). |
Ok, so I'm not crazy. Or at least my ears aren't crazy.
Interesting comments. I particularly like Nonoise and Whart's observation that realistic decays are at least as important as realistic attacks. In fact, I would add that to the list of answers to the OP's question...
One of the hallmarks of a high end system is that it can present decays convincingly.
Bryon |
Whart,
Exactly. Stridency, no. Decay (back end of wave), yes. The more complete the notes, in a musical piece, the more to appreciate.
The only analogous thing I can come up with at the moment is when one is looking at a stream. One can see the whole stream as it rushes (or meanders) past. When the waters clear, one can now see the bottom better. One can also see the streams edge as it works its way around, under and through the lands edges. Swirls and eddies are more apparent. There's more texture, fleeting as it is, to the water, what with reflections from the sun and air currents massaging its surface.
This stream is still traveling at the same speed but once the water is cleared of impurities, there is so much more to take in. It's not sensory overload but rather a better appreciation that uses more of ones mind to soak it all up.
It's that appreciation factor that makes thing seem to slow down as we're now using more than a base sensory input. It's beyond instinctual input as we're not dodging predators or looking for food. It uses a deeper part of our brain which we've honed through time with our relations to others, be it intimate, sports related, even culinary based (here's to another sense).
I'd even go so far as to say that all of our senses work this way and we take it for granted or chalk it up to something else specific to what we're doing at the time. That is what makes this hobby so wonderful for us and a complete mystery to those who don't take the time to listen to what we do.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Bryon,
No, your ears are not crazy. You posted before I did so I thought I'd relieve you of any vestige of doubt as to your sanity, here.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Thank you, Nonoise. I will print out your post and present it to my psychiatrist. Then she will finally have to rescind the restraining order.
bc |
To me it would be something that you could turn on everyday and smile. If you are happy with your sound then it's high end to you. MTCW! |
Hi,
Haven't perused the thread and predict my sentiment has been articulated in some fashion hitherto -- a high-end stereo should have the capacity to reproduce its source with fidelity, room notwithstanding.
Now, some may not be enamored with what they experience; albeit, the sound is being reproduced with fidelity. Enter a device to tailor the experience which satisfies the listener's sonic aesthetic.
|
To my opinion, high end stereo should be looked at with two aspects: high end + stereo. High end is for someone with a lot of money to spend. Being put at a fancy room for appearance appreciation. Stereo is stereo sound for all of us to listen to our favourite music whenever we have time to relax. Fedility is a personal perferrence. Just like singers in American Idol final, they are all good singers but the winner is being judged. Your own system is being judge by yourself. If you think further, violin plays a note is a note, but there are some famous violin outt here cost you a lot more. Why......... |
How about:
- Let's you listen to the music and not think about the stereo.
- See the trees in the forest more clearly.
- Good spacial qualities.
- Largest difference heard between recordings.
- Less error. |
Like listening to my Citation XX without your first point:) |
You know you've got your system right when your guests stop saying: "Man, your system sounds great!" and instead, they start saying: "Good grief! Those GUYS sound great." |
That will never happen in that context, probably never has. I've got direct to disc recordings of acoustic jazz that you could swear sound absolutely real and the response is even more so about the gear as a result. It's always about the gear and how well or not it performs when it's your hobby. But of course you appreciate the music. It's what drives the hobby. So what? No apologies |
Makes you think you could walk into that amorphous acoustical shape in front of you and listen to what you hear from in front, behind and to the sides. |
Ideally a high end stereo should sound so musically natural and complete that one stops thinking about the next upgrade and just enjoys the music. A musically natural and completely satisfying system should allow the listener to enjoy the lousy recordings as well as the the audiophile bon bons. |
My rig I'm sure will still sound great. Will it have something new added? Perhaps some more music. |
A great sound system should be utterly transparent. When the music is dynamic, it should make you jump. When there's real bass, you should feel it in your chest. When you close your eyes the speaker location shoul disappear.
I think my system does pretty good- so good in fact that a guest who wasn't aware that a system was on, asked who's playing a sax- |
When attending a live performance that isn't hyped up with an amplified sound system, a full classical orchestra for instance, or a small, intimate jazz trio or quartet, we don't think in terms of soundstage, transparency, imaging, low noise floor, etc. We just become absorbed by the music, and perhaps recognize how relaxed the sound is compared with our home stereo systems. A great sound system in the home should give us a some of what we hear in that live performance. I doubt if we'll ever get there, but it's fun striving to achieve it. So, a great home system let's us suspend disbelief from time to time and just go with the music's flow.
|
