Why isn’t more detail always better?
Is more detail always better if not unnaturally bright or fatiguing?
At first, I was thinking of the complexity of a cybal's shimmer. More detail = definitely better. Could never be too much. After listening to my current stereo, which is low detail, I realized that too much detail can be distracting and takes me away from the music. Do I want to hear a cymbal shimmer or feel the emotions of the musicians playing, for example. |
@avsjerry On the contrary. I think dipoles ruin soundstage and imaging by scattering sound willy-nilly about the room. Mine are blocked off at the backs and the "block-off" is a piece of modeling foam of a very specific size and shape covered with felt that is pushed into the V-notch. The rear reflection repassed through the front opening interacts with the diaphragm and creates a quasi ~3rd-4th order crossover at ~3,500Hz (regardless of your crossover setting) and instead of the Heil getting louder with frequency, this flattens everything above 3,500 Hz WHERE THE DETAIL LIES to ~12,500 Hz. Acoustic foam behind that ensures that any stray rear sound is further reduced. All that stuff on the front is nice. It improves soundstage, imaging, and focus by reducing ceiling/floor bounce, but the magic is in the rear. https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/im-fixing-a-hole-heil.1025205/ Great Heil response curve crossed over at 3kHz.
Modified Heil response curve. It is actually flatter/smoother now with the felts added. Do you see where the detail lies?
|
A line array of the above amt drivers could be outrageous, but if driven to that level of desire and intent, I'd opt to a pair of 2 of the Newform R45's....pricey, but in line with that level of intent..... Newforms' are rare to be seen for sale......not a dipole by design, but one could circumvent that with the application of mo' money....as usual....*l* |
@toddalin.... The magic being they're dipoles? I own 2 pairs of the 'big' versions, so no new news there.... ;) The mods applied to the plate structures ( L+R ) and the top and bottom recesses is nice, tho'. Cleans up their appearance, the bottoms being dust traps... Any audible differences from that? Is that a diy or an 'off the shelf' mod, available from where/who? Spouse is still without clue for my Xmas 'surprise' ( Hers' being a Kindle Paperwhite, after leaden hints....) |
@desktopguy -thanks. I've been around the block more than a few times, which means almost nothing, but I've heard a lot of systems over the 50+ years I've been playing in this field. I learned to listen using a pair of Quad Loudspeakers (which I still have and use- I bought them in 1974 and had them sympathetically restored for my vintage system by Kent McCollum at Electrostatic Solutions). The Quads (original 57s) are severely compromised by today's standards but had an eerie midrange. The reality is that they seem to filter out a lot of garbage compared to the main horn system, which at 104db efficiency, are very unforgiving if there is anything amiss- whether it is inter-component grounding, noise on the line, or any other source of noise or distortion. Getting that horn system tuned to what I believe is a close approximation of what real instruments sound like like took time- when I moved from NY to Texas, I got the benefit of a bigger room, cleaner power (though the grid in Texas is a whole other issue) and was familiar enough with the system, having lived with it for a decade that it was fairly easy to get it dialed in with a little effort (and some muscle from a friend's grandkids to move some of the really heavy equipment). I'll accept that I'm a subjectivist in that I listen for what sounds real to my ears. I don't have the high frequency capability that I did when I was young (I'm gonna be 71 years old soon) but since most of the action is in the mids, that's where I start. I've heard some of the legendary systems of the various eras, from double KLH 9s with Marantz tubes, through IRS V's, to the original Wilson WAMM to the big Apogees, the original oversized Martin Logan (Monolith?) to Duntech Sovereigns, the rare Dayton-Wright. (Never got to hear the original Hill Plasmatronic, though I knew somebody who had owned that speaker). The art of reproduction is different than "monitoring" and requires some effort in set up, placement and some deliberation in choosing components that "synergize" to create an effective illusion. Because that is what we are doing in home hi-fi-- attempting to create a convincing illusion of real instruments playing in our room. I use minimal room treatment, mainly bass traps, and very few "tweaks" though I spent real money on power, turntable isolation and cheated by using DSP on the additional 15 inch subs that run independently of the main speaker system. I used to have some full sized concert grands in a few previous homes. I know what a real piano sounds like. Very few recordings effectively capture the growl of the low registers or the ethereal quality of a well voiced piano in the upper registers. (I had a vintage Bosendorfer at one point, thing was gorgeous for about two weeks after it got voiced then soured). To me, it is horses for courses- if you play loud rock, you aren't going to want the original Quad (well, maybe stacked with ribbons plus woofers, something I experimented with back in the day) along with faux multichannel before home theatre made that a reality. I do enjoy listening other people's systems. I've heard some great ones in people's homes over the years. When people ask what to buy on the audio forums, I usually encourage them to get as much seat time as possible, though comparisons of cartridges and turntables/tone arms is far more difficult. Much of improvement I've enjoyed in this current system is the time spent in set up and voicing in my estimation (I'm a tube guy, so changing one tube can throw the whole system off). Have a great holiday-everybody! |
+1 @whart -- exactly right. No, more and more and more detail isn't good. It quickly becomes unnatural. The test is simple: 1 - Remember a time when you heard unamplified live music in a well designed acoustic space (classical in a really good room is ideal for this): or live amplified music in a good space where it just sounded well balanced, no peaky/shreaky headaches, bass overwhelming other instruments, etc. 2 - Remember the "detail" on that occasion? You probably don't. That's because it was just there, correct and in harmony with other aspects of the sound. If "detail" jumps out in live music experiences, there's something wrong with the room, the board settings if amplified, or maybe you're sitting too close/too far from the music. In reproduced music, I used those examples as acoustic comparators. If the detail within the music I hear from the audio system is even in the ballpark of those events, I'm OK with it. Then it's on to other things that are even harder for even good audio systems to get really right: dynamics (impossible to match the real thing), tonality/timbre, soundstage, etc. In my decades in audio appreciation, excessive, "hyped" detail is a constant annoyance that someone is always espousing to me as the best thing. It never is. It never sounds real or anything even close to real music. |
Remember Yamaha came out with Beryllium for the tweeter and midrange in the 1970’s. Paradigm followed suite around 2016 with the Persona lineup. For their new top end speakers, Yamaha did not want to use Beryllium, so they investigated a fibre used to make yachts (if I remember correctly). What’s interesting about this Zylon material, other than the sound and fast properties, is that the tweeter, mid, and the 12-inch woofer are all made with the same material. This makes for a very coherent sound. I do not need to go and listen since I bought the NS5000 a few years ago. Super detailed, no fatigue, and very coherent. |
A Zylon...WTF is it? Sounds like a polymer pastiche' to this unfortunate non-immortal..... Mabbe a layer of that Scotchtissue....laminated to the front of the driven surface for obvious 'texture'.... Of Course he'll opine that his OB's are better, Kenobi.....They're like that...*L* Won't say he's wrong, either.... ;) |
@noromance...The ’white paper’ answers a lot....most of which previously threw me into the trap laid.....I have a pair of drivers that work best with a blocked vent...imho and taste. the last of which...🤷♂️ I might try that on my Heils for grins.... @yyzsantabarbara....makes sense to me....Yam. wouldn’t stay in business if they don’t keep sharpening the bleedin’ edge.... Go listen and file a report....Due Xmas eve....take a roll or 12 of TP ’samples’....;) |
I was having lunch with a friend who is a musician | amp builder | speaker builder | etc. He was telling me that the Yamaha NS10M definitely needed some toilet paper on the drivers. I asked him if the paper had to be clean (being an audiophile). He still has a pair of the NS10M in his shop and uses them for some analysis. Interestingly he told me that the new Yamaha NS5000 was the best box speaker he had heard. The new Zylon drivers are detailed as Beryllium but not bright. The best of both worlds. However, he did say that his Open Baffle (non-box) speaker was better. |
IME, more detail is almost always better, as long as it’s accompanied by a good bass foundation and low distortion. The problem with many speakers and components is they produce the detail but not without distortion, especially IMD. When you finally get speakers with truly high quality drivers, the IMD is low and you get the detail without the fatigue. That is, unless the recording is actually terrible. |
@noromance ...*laugh* Well, I got the Yamaha part right.....and I was a Y-rider when I wasn't so easy to bruise 'n break.. Now, when I'm living in a bike-friendly area with lotsa curves, I make do with the 4 wheeler.... Thankfully, it's reasonably nimble.... The NS-10 sounded like one of their 'GP street bikes' that cost like a car and require being as much of a fanboy as we are re audio... At least we don't have to wear leathers to listen....unless you've inscrutable tastes and interesting habits.. 👍😏😎 |
@asvjerry Yeah, this. Examining the Yamaha NS-10M “Tissue Paper Phenomenon” Bob Hodas - Educational Resources |
@noromance ...oh, had to switch dialects, alter the unconsciousness gain.....Now, if we wind down the ’noids and pump up the volume, dance, dance..... "It’ll be aaaalllll rrriiiight....", no? *bedazed @ the fountain* @mapman ;) Gotta’ watch that "technology from 20 or more years ago" rant, when we’re both really happy with one that’s 2.5x that..... Best example of the single driver format, rotated 90, and stretch the cone.... Like any of the speaker designs we prefer and laud about to those still awake, there’s that tweak that makes it sing for us. The 3 section cones of the F......the Heil amts’ rippled ribbon, don’t push/pull when you can pinch ( without getting slapped over it...;)....).... The method is in the movements and how precise it can be in a given span... The decay of the struck piano (harp) string....how close to what you’ve experienced before and tomorrow....does the percussion match the drive and dream of IRL....the keyboards with lines to enhance the other instruments, the vocals dodging or floating the lyricals.... *nirvana delayed only for now....* Lots of variations on the themes of How about to about us to select the Way....including the paved perfection through the rocky path on cliffs’ edge to the Hermit Audiosociopath... We attend shows, visit B&Ms’, ’zines, sites, converse with other Seekers of the Improbable Infinity, Driven. (*sigh* Long way to go to dump a pun....if only for groans... 😏 ) The entirety of the above was with this in the headphones....in loop.....bmb ;)
|
Detail is at all frequencies. Dynamic range facilitates detail. Most music occurs in the midrange including voice so detail there probably adds the most. Interesting to consider most any decent speaker can cover midrange. Yet the results can vary so widely! How can one account for that? Detail including transients, frequency response, very low noise, dynamic range…… that’s it for me. Take out the detail and not much left. Isn’t 4K video resolution always better and always preferred? Just do it well! Who still wants a tv limited by technology from 20 or more years ago? Not me. Audio follows a similar pattern. Advancement in technology and applying it well is the key. |
Good thought that detail is not only in the treble. Although that is where we think of it. But it is also in the midrange and bass. One of the biggest revelations to me was when changing to tubed amps the nuance of bass that I had never heard before..of course as well as in the midrange as a result of it being fully represented, |
@noromance ...*?* My UniversedXlator came back with "Duh?: Yammy=Yamaha, NS10=GP RR bike:?"...per the onboard wetware.... Rev&Repost? Pwease.... ;) |
@asvjerry Tissue on the Yammy NS10s. |
@waytoomuchstuff ...as one who accompanied spouse to her 50th HS reunion over Halloween wknd.....both agreed an excuse to visit NYC over the following wk. DJ lame....crowd overdressed....if not in the company of one of her 2 friends then & now, unrecognized....self a stranger on a stranger chunk of the planet.... ...and hadn't even been to Manhattan yet....*LOL* Missed return from Newark by minutes.... "WTF is plan B.S?!" Renter (NEW! 300 on a Nissan sedan for 40$/d, no limit mi.....) Watch this, commuters....700 mi. in 11ish hrs., 80~85 as poss. on Interstates. Spouse has learned how to 'push it' from yours unruly....❤....;) ) End of day, worth it to escape the flood routines, thanx Helene... @mapman , GF, zed argument from your DIY Walsh adherent here...👍😉 Re-arranging here into a 'proper' Walsh surround w/sub to prove to spouse that a pair of Maggies will suck. Even if I tag the ESS amts' along to tag along...which require nil space.... Have 4, can astound soon; surround amt's of the same caricature's....just like IRL....*wooosh *L* @dishman442 Yeah, it's only when the raw meat gets tossed in that things get 'complicated'... ;) +10, Yes, only gets more involved when we bring our stuff home that the formulas get involved, drastically by the space we try to make it 'happen' within. DSP can improve, but likely never cure the 'random locale' we attempt to live and live with re audio endeavors... SAV can be a sofa too high to surmount....unless you are or have the wallet to become a monk..... ;) |
I must say, this thread has proven people can discuss a subject at length without someone pissing in someone else’s post toasties. Kudos to all. My two cents: Low (volume) level detail can get lost in noise, so chasing hum and AC noise can pay detail dividends. This detail can include pretty much the whole spectrum of frequencies. Most of us (myself included) tend to think of detail or lack of as occurring in the higher frequencies in the realm covered by tweeters. Some mechanical aspects of tweeters impact detail like low mass (speed) and low distortion, but assuming quality tweeters, much of what we perceive as detail is driven by the amplitude (volume) from the tweeter. In my experience contributing to speaker design a LOOOONG time ago, we could increase the volume of the tweeter and it would enhance the level of detail we perceived. Cymbals would shimmer, the attack at the beginning of a guitar note was addictively clean. Life was good. Things I had never heard were uncovered, like noticing the piano player was quietly singing along or tapping his toes to the beat. Percussion at the back of the hall on classical recordings was “right there” instead of smeared across the back of the soundstage. However… we eventually noticed the downside to all this detail; fatigue. Whereas before our listening sessions often lasted long into the night, now we had had enough after an hour or two. On some recordings, in particular digital recordings, it felt like I needed to duck when a cymbal TING flew past my face. All this detail was masking the glorious midrange we had worked so hard to achieve. Midrange is the meat and potatoes for those of us who love to get sucked into the involvement of great recordings where we look up and hours have passed in heady enjoyment. Mercifully, I’ve come to my point. All speaker manufacturers deal with this balancing act. Hotter tweeters produce more addictive detail, but at the risk of causing less musical and more fatiguing results. We as audiophiles can impact the balancing decisions made by our speakers designers with the equipment we choose, interconnects, room treatment, speaker placement, etc, but that’s a whole different set of subjects.
|
@ghdprentice @lalitk @whart and others — great points & discussion! |
@asvjerry also to help clarify. The Ohms are still the speakers that I want to listen to the most for pure musical enjoyment. Nothing new there…..it’s for all the same reasons as always. Ohms put the performers in your room best. If I must choose I prefer having the orchestra squeezed into my room like a mini concert venue. Nearfield listening is for immersing yourself in the recording. It’s more about the recording itself and less about pure musical enjoyment.
Two totally different listening experiences. Both enjoyable in different ways. Both benefit from more detail, dynamics, etc. All those good things that make music interesting. I’m getting more of that now than ever with some recent enhancements upstream. It’s an interesting thing that I think you have to experience in order to appreciate. I am fortunate that I get to enjoy the best of both worlds. YMMV cheers!
|
@asvjerry Glad you asked. The nearfield setup lets you peer deeply into the recording. Like most people I am not using the Ohms for nearfield listening though I have tried that and it works quite well. If I had to choose only one speaker would still be my big Ohm F5s. Second choice would probably be somewhat larger KEFs. Blades would likely be the ultimate. But I am not really interested in any new big heavy gear these days. I’ve had success downsizing yet improving the sound in general by doing my homework and leveraging smaller and more cost effective products that take advantage of technical innovations.
Note that I do use a sub with the little ls50 metas and that combo set up well is hard to beat in smaller rooms at least and at listening levels considered safe for long term exposure. I also have a pair of Italian crafted Sonus Faber floor standers that I got a very good deal on locally on the house. Those are lovely in all ways also but of course are way different. |
As the aging gentleman said as he abruptly exited the room ... "Depends" The term "detail" would imply "information", So what could be wrong with more information? It depends/Depends. When we made the transition into HDTV, those prominent primetime news anchors looked ..uh .. 30 years older. Didn't help their ratings. Or, make our TV dinners more palettable while watching. Those "details" also contain spacial information which plays a major role in focus, staging, and "air" in the presentation. Sometimes the "details" are just right, but the room is getting in the way of an, otherwise, magnificent presentation. Or, sometimes the "details" sound perfect to our ears at moderate levels, but when dynamic passages are presented and other parts of the music just can't keep up, and those ":details" become prominent, and overwhelming. Like the time when we run into an old high school flame 30 years after graduation wearing short shorts. More information is not always better. |
@mapman ...How's the Ohms doing in that regard? :) |
Detail done right, like my Schitt Yggi+ OG DAC is amazing. I think the new SimAudio North Collection amps are getting raves because of the detail but also the natural sound of that detail. They are (almost?) as detailed as the Benchmark AHB2. I love the RAAL SR1a and the Immanis phones because they are uber detailed. The Immanis being like the North Collection amps with the natural sound. That is why there is a world-wide lineup of buyers to get these phones. I have been listening to my SR1a phones for the past 4+ hours into the night as I work and there is 0 fatigue. Sound is so good I am not missing my 2-channel. The KEF LS50 Meta + KEF KC62 sub in a small room is amazing. I liked the wall of sound of the Magnepan LRS+ with the same sub, but it definitely was not as nice sounding as the LS50 Meta. The LRS+ was more interesting sonically with the massive deep soundstage. The only time I did not choose detail. |
I have different setups in different rooms. One smaller room has KEF ls50 meta speakers set up near field. That setup is revelatory when it comes to delivering every last morsel of detail in a recording. The better recordings simply bring the room to life! Totally enthralling! That’s a word I do not toss around very often. Give near field a chance! |
Something to consider... When you hear sounds, music, birds, etc. in the real world, it is typically much further from you than listening to your speakers. Sound attenuates with distance, and there are two types of attenuation. There is the typical "spreading loss" (e.g., 6 dB per doubling of the distance for a point source), but their is also "atmospheric attenuation" due to the energy being absorbed by the ambient atmosphere. In this case, the higher the frequency, the faster it attenuates. So listening to music in your living room at 10 feet away from your speakers, or hanging a microphone in front of an amplifier's speaker, is not the same as sitting 40 feet away where you would experience a different frequency balance, not so heavy on the highs, unless the recording was made 40 feet away. |
Feel like we are talking about 3 different things. 1. Bloom 2. Overly bright systems 3. Overly detailed IMHO, they are totally separate, but can also be part of the same issue. My vintage system sounded great to me, my TT was the standout performer, much better overall sound over streaming or radio. Was impressed with my system. Then I did a full rebuild on my speaker XO. This was almost a night and day difference. Top to bottom, everything was better. Much more bass, more mid, more high. Everything was cleaner, crisp, more detail. After letting everything break in, started to notice more surface noise on certain records, some didn't sound as good, but others sounded so much better. streaming was much better, started to turn down both my bass and treble when streaming. After a bit, did a full recap on my pre-amp and amp, along with replacing a ton of ut of spec parts. Just like the speakers, while it still had the same sonic signature as before, everything was better. So much more detail, much deeper bigger bass, highs were fatiguing. Good recordings sounded so good! But bad ones were now unlistenable. Some of my old blues records sounded like poo. Now streaming is king, with so much detail that just was not there before. Tone controls are set to +2 bass, and 0 or -1 on treble. Installed a L-pad on my tweeters. Went through all 3 of these things over about 3 months. Some of it was for the good but some was for the bad. While good recordings sound so much better, with all this added detail, much lower noise floor, so much soundstage, clarity. Lesser recordings are just not listenable anymore. My old setup masked so much, now it just passes everything, the good with the bad. My $.02 More detail is a two sided problem. It will bring out all the good of the source material, but will also now overly highlight all the bad in any recording. Overly bright systems will just give you listening fatigue. You will miss most of the lower and midrange due to it. Weirdly, after installing my l-pads, there was more bass. Think it was due to the tweeters overpowering the bass, that was there, it was hiding behind all the highs. Bloom, not sure I totally understand it. I get the "ripple" after hitting a note, but think that is also decay? Never really paid much attention to it, but I do know, piano, and acoustic guitar sound amazing on my system. When there is a quite part of the music, then it hammer in, I've jumped out of my seat a few times. |
@kevn thanks for that very comprehensive and insightful response. Enjoy the music! |
- I’ve found that anything that sounds unnaturally bright or fatiguing is not detail, it’s distortion. Systems that do that are not detailed, they just haven’t reduced degradation of the original signal sufficiently to pass muster. A truly detailed and accurate system is a joy to behold, because it lets through so much of the original signal, we gradually come to realise, with the increasing nuance that cleaner and more accurate delivery of the signal brings, that there are very few truly bad recordings in existence. Due to the depth of nuance to the soundfield for each recorded venue, good recordings are the easiest in the world to identify, not so the bad. I’ve also found that the discussion of sound ‘preference’ in our hobby is a silly one - who wouldn’t want live music to be their base reference for every live recording they hear? Live music is not a preference, it’s actual sound quality, and through inference we subsequently gauge all studio recordings, mixed or otherwise. Even in the most atrociously sound engineered recordings, there is an authenticity to some instrument being played, analogue or electronic, which the original recording was intended to be heard with exactly as presented, as is commonly gauged by other live recordings we use for the simulation of accuracy - preference is, in fact, one of the most mind numbing paradigms many audiophiles live under, in excuse to avoid the huge effort of learning and expenditure it takes to find sound realism - preference has never had anything to do with the closest approximation to sound realism our amazing hobby is. Preference is actually the furthest thing to do with the sound realism. That deep bass hit on an eagles recording sound too deep? Find a live acoustic recording of a double bass or the lower to lowest notes of an organ, then compare that to a live performance at a church, jazz bar or an orchestra. Identify it all with the same equipment in the signal chain, and that deep bass may actually be reasonably accurate, by inference. Shrill cymbal strikes don’t need much comparison - the highest frequencies that unsettle or don’t sound natural to one’s ears are not natural, they’re the result of distortion. In any case, most all the high frequencies heard on any recording can be compared with acoustic highs directly, on the same instruments. However, all frequencies, artificially manipulated, can only be compared by inference, to actual instruments over the same frequencies. And, I know this will diverge from the original post by quite a bit, and also stir a bit of trouble, but for the sake of the discussion on realism, here we go - after I had done my rounds listening to some amazing systems in both analogue and digital realms, I’ve finally found a way to describe the differences I hear in the most refined fully analogue systems and their equivalents in digital: each present very different views of the audio universe - the very best vinyl/fully tubed system with horns will give you the James Webb view, a fully heightened and incredibly dense forward view of that universe, so beautiful and bold in presentation, you cannot pull your eye/ear away from it, seductive and unimaginably palpable. The very best fully digital/solid state systems will present the entire heavens through the healthy eyes of a twelve year old child on a clear Montana night with everything in perspective and the entire midnight sky to behold, nothing calling out for attention, but there when perceived. This is where preference may play a part. Many of us mix tube preamps with solid state amps for the best of both worlds. Some say that’s silly, and mix solid state preamps with valved amps to keep the signal more accurate during the initial amplification phase, to the same end - getting the best of both views. Others swear by the beautiful glow of tubes from start to end, while others cannot bear what they see as their inconvenience of maintenance - you see the element of preference in all this. For myself, I would only ever want to see the universe through the unaided clear eyes of a twelve year old - it is what to me best represents realism, the way my eyes/ears were built to see/hear it. I listen to the fourth movement of berlioz’s symphonie fantastique on vinyl/tubes/horns and I know no orchestra actually sounds that way in reality in any concert hall in the world, while everything gives me an actual seat at the venue with my transistors. I also believe the best balance for the budget conscious is a mixed system and, as fellow audiophile david sen once said, with the valves only at the end of the signal chain with the amp, sans horns. My own belief on this is so as to preserve as much signal accuracy for the soundfield as possible - we often sacrifice so much of the absolutely vital soundfield which solid state distinguishes so well and vinyl/tubes/horns tend to muddy, for beautiful timbre/texture/dynamics which tubes and horns, and the dynamics of vinyl so excels at. Fully digital systems on a budget already begin with so much distortion affecting soundfield at the source equipment, that all the tubes do in between that and the speakers is to create better texture and timbre to compensate. The best tubed equipment will reduce inaccuracy to the soundfield, but not as much as ‘good’ solid state will. And then again, one will require the best solid state to allow timbre, texture, and dynamics through realistically - so therein lies the audiophile’s conundrum - that eternal struggle between the preferenced and the unbiased, between the detail and the timbre, and between the soundfield and the dynamics. I realise these distinctions and polarities may not be exclusive to each other, and there will be other views on the issue, and as so, let the discussion begin ; ) In any case, thanks for your weighted question, mapman, and I wish you and everyone else well on your journeys and your year end : ) In friendship - kevin |
When listening to live music, I’m only focused on sonics if they are distractingly poor -- such as painfully loud or bright. Where I want my focus to be is on emotional engagement, with my left brain, like my cell phone, switched off ! I can't imagine listening to live music as if listening to a home system-- checking for soundstage depth, resolution, etc. OK, if you're the sound guy at the the venue it makes sense but as an audience member, why pollute the listening experience by bringing along the analytical function? Lock him in the car and leave him behind in the parking lot. After the show, you can always let back him out. |
Last night's listening session with this thread in mind. So I did the usual and let Roon shuffle auto play my library, so this means all manner of musical genres and recording quality played back to back.
Deficient recording sound recordings fell into these categories. 1. Opaque recordings, just sort of blah, indistinct. Likely recordings taken from who knows what generation masters. Greater resolution/detail simply makes them less blah, opaque, they become somewhat more involving. 2. Weird sound staging, like fake stereo or excess of information hard panned to one side or the other. Greater detail means more expansive sound stage so the hard panned info bleeds more into center image, and you hear more of the recessed info on the other channel. Its all good. 3. Compressed center images, especially on some 40's, 50's mono recordings. More expansive sound stage coming from greater detail makes these more highly compressed sound stages far more involving since you know hear more highly individualized images within that sound stage. 4. Recordings with somewhat compressed dynamics, not the loudness wars recordings, these are recorded at normal levels, likely fault is with recording equipment not being up to par, sounds like early generation masters since transparency is nice. Not all of these recording fit in with overall compression, some compress certain performers/instruments while allowing full dynamic expression of others. Generally I'll find this with instrumental parts being at least somewhat compressed while vocals allowed full expression, I believe the intent is to bring attention to the vocalist, wrongheaded to my way of thinking. If one considers dynamics as being part and parcel of detail, these somewhat compressed recordings potential can be more fully realized. They become somewhat more alive in that you get to hear more of the limited micro and macro dynamics their capable of. 5. Recordings with timbre issues, Last night I heard this with some massed trumpets and or violins on some recordings. Actually, in some cases I don't believe this was timbre issue as much as exceeding peak levels of recording equipment, in other words recorded too hot, distortion creeping in at high decibel levels. Other times it may be inherent to recording due to recording equipment or technique. Perhaps this isn't solely a detail issue, goes into presentation issue. In any case take greater detail with what is hopefully a system capable of producing natural timbre and these recordings become much more palatable. Nice to have the increased detail as rest of most of these recordings can be very involving. Actually brings some Count Basie, Duke Ellington late 40's, 50's to mind, some very early stereo. A Mantovani recording with massed violins was pretty bad. 6. Volume war recordings. The worst offenders are recorded at such high levels peaks have to severely cut off, absolute butchers. I can hear this crap even on low level systems. Others may be recorded a slightly lower levels, rather than butchers these guys are barbers, just a bit off the top please. Whatever the case, these guys shouldn't be allowed in a recording studio and the artists should know better. Can't respect the artists who allow this.
May have neglected some other recording issues here. In any case, with the exception of the butchers and barbers I want all the detail I can possibly get. Continually amazed how much info with 16/44, and to think they believed it to be severely compromised at one point, same with streaming. |
@larryi "there is no difference in the musical detail presented in playback. Can anyone point out a specific bit of information in a particular place in a recording that cannot at all be heard with one piece of gear versus another?" Yes, I can. The specific recording is Shostakovich Piano Concerto number 2, slow movement. Hyperion SACD with Marc-Andre Hamelin as the soloist. This is a very quiet piece of music, apparently very simple (though I suspect this is deceptive). On a highly resolving system, the piano notes seem to hang in the air. (Quad electrostatic speakers, Krell class A amplification). When I switched from a Marantz universal player to a Reavon, I immediately knew something was wrong. The detail and the musicality just weren't there. A bit of research showed that the Reavon's Burr-Brown DACs did not support native DSD. Reavon's technical team confirmed that DSD was down-converted to CD quality both for multichannel playback, and for 2-channel playback through their more resolving 2-channel DAC. CD quality is poorest on very quiet passages. Switch to DSD through HDMI output into my pre-processor's AKM DACs and all the musical magic qualities reappeared. There are 8 DACs each supporting 2-channel DSD natively. So here is an example where the identical equipment (in fact the same pieces of gear) sounded very obviously different with exactly the same DSD source. As a side note, this performance has just been released on vinyl and I look forward to comparing it to SACD. On Presto Music, the SACD is no longer listed! |
Lowering the noise floor certainly increases perceptible detail. But you can’t lower the noise floor on poorly recorded material where the noise is part of that material, and in some cases maybe it is better just to "reduce" it a hair to make that noise a bit less objectionable. I designed my crossovers so that I can easily reduce the "noisy" portion of the band with the flip of a switch/twist of a knob. A bit of detail is lost, but the music becomes more listenable.
|
It helps to understand the effect different frequencies have on the listening experience. There are charts out there that can be used for reference. I have one hanging on the wall in my main listening room. You are initially at the mercy of your room in regards to how those listening experience determining frequencies pan out. DSP is the tool that best enables one to address that fact. I’ve applied dsp to get a handle on how things sound in multiple rooms at home. Now I am at a much better place to be nitpicking the details (no pun intended). |
“In my experience more perceived natural detail is achieved by lowered noise floor, tonal refinement and reduction of grunge in the overall presentation (purity of sound)” I completely agree with your perspective. Lowering the noise floor and refining tonal qualities allow the music to flow effortlessly. A good understanding of these fundamentals begs the next question…Is my system and room acoustics capable of conveying these fundamentals? If yes, then to what degree. |
Translation: Your room is not cut out for handling detail. ( Clueless it began, clueless it ended).
|
@sns @dynamiclinearity @frogman I think we are on the same page. |
It seems to me you are more interested in what you want to hear yourself tell us about these things. Seriously, you answered your own question in the OP.
Because it can be
|
