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.
What is a high end stereo SUPPOSED to sound like?
I've been thinking about this for a while....like 10+ years. Would be interested in what others have to say.
My latest answer would have to be "nothing". I want to hear the music and not the stereo. Like "Come over and listen to some music" versus "Come over and listen to my new stereo". If there are errors, they would be errors of omission, not commission because I assume they are less noticeable.
My latest answer would have to be "nothing". I want to hear the music and not the stereo. Like "Come over and listen to some music" versus "Come over and listen to my new stereo". If there are errors, they would be errors of omission, not commission because I assume they are less noticeable.
133 responses Add your response
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- |
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 |
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......... |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
"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. |
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? |
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'? |
I like Onhwy61s take on it. It's a different angle but it does address the OPs original ruminations. One needn't have an expensive, high end system to feel the soul of the music. Audiophile issues aside, the emotional response one gets from a song or piece of music is independent of the quality of the gear. Granted, a highly resolving system is most welcome and would be icing on the cake and we can all agree that once you've heard better, going back is hard. But is it necessary? No. All the best, Nonoise |
Onhwy61, I hear you and thought I addressed it in my post. Of course you can have an emotional response to a song even on a car radio with a bunch of road noise. Sing along. Cry. Laugh. But there is an additional magic when hearing it live because of the nuances of emotion, the nuances of the instruments (including voice) and the clarity broadcast in a live performance. A good stereo should also accomplish that. The musicians grab a hold and don't let go at an entirely different level. Subtle but distinct to my heart. You can't not pay attention. |
A 'high end' stereo system succeeds when it reminds me of what I hear live. It need not replicate live music, I'll leave that quest for someone else. 'Reminds me' is good enough. My imagination will take over then. When this occurs I credit the recording engineers mostly, equipment manufacturers next, and for selection and set up of a system I'll take the credit. And if it just happens to be a great performance as well I'm in hog heaven. Interestingly I think before I became an audio hobbyist I actually listened to more 'music'. Now I seem to listen to a lot of 'sound' and it is harder to get into poorer recordings even when the performance is quite good. |
IT should sound: enjoyable, exhilarating, powerful, delicate, enthralling. A lot like good live music but not exactly the same. Basically, you can't get enough! It should not sound: dull, boring, distorted, irritating. Like some live music. Basically, it either captures you or not. Its an emotional thing in the end that is enabled by technology. |
Bryon and Almarg, are you suggesting lack of neutrality includes any and all perceivable kinds of distortion? If you are, then can we not use "the alternate", aka, accuracy?The word 'neutrality' means different things to different people. I use the word to mean 'the degree of absence of colorations.' And I use the word 'colorations' to mean 'audible inaccuracies.' My use of the term 'neutrality' is limited to the degree of absence of AUDIBLE inaccuracies. But of course some inaccuracies are inaudible, either because they are outside the scope of human perception or beneath the threshold of individual perception. So the word 'accuracy' can't be substituted for 'neutrality' without a significant shift in meaning. IMO, another useful way of thinking about the difference between the concept of 'accuracy' vs. the concept of 'neutrality' is this... Accuracy is objective, i.e. 'inaccuracy' refers to various kinds of distortions, many of which can be measured, and all of which exist whether we hear them or not. Neutrality is partly subjective, i.e. 'colorations' refers to various kinds of sonic "signatures," many of which can be heard by some listeners but not others, either because of differences in listener hearing or differences in listener expertise. IMO, the concept of 'accuracy,' as it's commonly used by audiophiles, is a higher-level concept that subsumes the concepts of 'resolution' and 'neutrality.' In other words, resolution and neutrality are both TYPES OF ACCURACY. Resolution can be thought of as the accuracy of the reproduced SIGNAL, whereas neutrality can be thought of as the accuracy of the reproduced DISTORTION. Some high end systems are highly resolving but not very neutral. Others are highly neutral but somewhat less resolving. Which is preferable is of course largely subjective. Bryon |
I'd rather answer in terms of what it's supposed to feel like. You can hear a song from someone like Eva Cassidy on a low end system and like it for the beautiful lyrics. You can hear the same song on a higher end system and feel it in your soul. Of course, it has to be a good song. If the dynamics are there and the sound stage is there and the clarity is there and you can hear every nuance including the breathing and the decay of the notes -- those things and others combine to ignite your emotions at a different level. Low end systems can certainly elicit an emotional response based on the quality of the song but great stereos wrench you like nothing other than live music can. With a great stereo, you don't want to leave the experience. |
Practically, and in an objective manner consistent with modern best practices for effectively leveraging technology, I would define high end by applying the 80/20 rule therefore a high end system must practically be in the top 20% and better than 80% of the systems out there overall. Ok, so now you have to define what "better" means. That of course will involve different strokes for different folks. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Does it really matter what "high end " means? Maybe the whole concept should just be dumped. |
the problem with the term "high end", is that is a typical audiophile term. it has no definitive definition. if , as audiophiles, we could agreee on the definition of high end, the question raised by this thread would be answered. the fact that there are so many responses indicates that, like other audiophile terms, its subjective in nature and either is a rhetorical question or is a matter of opinion. i suppose then that asking the question is designed to elicit as many perspectives as possible. as a practical matter it doesn't have any affect upon one's ability to enjoy listening to recordings. such a question demonstrates that philosophy and "audiophilia", share many attributes. |
"but what you get is more off an abstract Monet determined largely by room acoustics" Actually room acoustics and the recording production process together determine what a recording will sound like in your room and how "lifelike". A "high end system" should be capable of fooling you with the right recording playing more times than not I would say. But in all cases it should remain true to the recording. |
Audiophiles love to battle their rooms to improve room acoustics. Sometimes, certain battles can be won but in the end the room is what it is unless of course you totally change it into something else. That's true of live venues and studios during production and our rooms at home during playback. Room acoustics can and generally are conquered to the extent needed to SIMULATE a live sound in your room, but what you get is more off an abstract Monet determined largely by room acoustics than an accurate reproduction of what things sounded like originally. |