Ndeslions, To get that focus and air hifi components cheats, it's all in the meds and high meds, a bit less meds, a bit more high meds and you get the details, the air, the focus BUT you loose timbral accuracy, fullness. The technical term is a "scooped midrange' - it has been extremely successful in high end audio. Add a metal tweeter and you can often achieve an "etched" sound. If you are after timbral characteristics more than a wow soundstage, ambience or atmasphere then try to audition a Harbeth or ATC speaker. Internally damped drivers like pulp paper cones or polypropylene or doped fabrics seem to work well at preserving the timbral information on the recording - these are all very old as the hills type speaker designs. I am not a fan of newer metal or ceramic cones (often ringing issues) unless you go for the best designs like accuton. Because of the preponderance of two way designs with 6" woofer/mid drivers the midrange scoop is the most common sound from speakers today (a large cone will tend to beam in the midrange leading to a midrange scoop and an emphasis in upper mids and air when you listen far field). I may be barking up the wrong tree but this is likely part of your problem. |
HiFi and high-end audio have NEVER, EVER, EVER come close to the sound of live music, and don't seem to be necessarily any closer now.
The point made about soundstaging is particularly relevant; hyperdetail as well. Real, live music has neither of these. Conversely, live music has dynamics and flow that are not produced accurately by ANY high-end audio system I have ever been around.
In my opinion, when it comes to loudspeakers, those that possess the necessary dynamics and instaneous swings in volume, for example, horns, tend to sound far more agressive, brash, and threadbare than real life, while those that can reproduce the proper timber, liquidity, relaxed nature, voluptuousness, or flow such as electrostatics (which often overshoot the mark) are woefully inadequate when it comes to dynamics and being able to reproduce both the suddenness and power of the real thing. Typical cone/dome speakers fall somewhere in the middle of those two, determined mostly by their crossovers and/or their drive units.
Bottom line, perfection does not exist today when it comes to audio. And, it doesn't seem imminent on the horizon, either. So, in the effort to get as close to whatever idea of such exists in our minds, we chase after that which we believe lines up best with that - be it soundstaging, clarity/resolution, timbre, immediacy, liquidity, fullness, dynamics, etc. Sure it's incorrect, and sometimes wildly so, but it's the best we can do for now. |
hi dpac996:
a great tune is a great tune, regardless of sound quality.
i can listen to music on a radio and get what ever the composer intended as i would on a "high end" stereo system.
the only difference between the two is the sound, not the emotional content. i can recognize a clarinet on a boom box. it may sound more "authentic" on a stereo system.
music is still music, regardless of the medium.
regarding air, i believe one hears notes not the air. air is silent. go outside your house or appartment building. do you hear air ? |
"You can feel the air in your face and body if you are seating in front rows"
ahh that would be something else...make sure you don't inhale---anymore
hi-fi systems are not necessary to get the "soul" of the music...you are either moved emotionally by a song or not. How many of you heard a song for the first time on a high end system and felt emotional with it right then and there, vs the stuff you hear on radios, cars, stores, live venues....etc. For me, everything that I love i've heard 99.9% elsewhere (outside of my system).
Most hi-fi systems that i've heard and assembled (until now) snare us to listen to the top recordings only, and head for the door, or volume ctrl on inferior recordings (wide, flat bandwidth, neutral equipment...etc).
For me there is usally an inverse relationship b/t recording quality and how I REALLY feel about the music. So, the typical high-end vision of the "purist" approach has screwed me somewhat; I love the equipment, love those times when the magic combination is in play, but i'm sometimes repulsed by the expense and effort to, in the end not, have something that brings me maximum joy for the music I love the most. The large scale abandonment of truly high quality analog tone circuits is one primary cause to the merry go round, I suspect for a lot of folks. |
Ndeslions speaks a lot of truth.
I have auditioned so many mega $$$ digital sources and amps that has this phenomena. Etched and focussed sound images. Mostly stripped of air soundstage.
Real live music (non amplified for the most part) has plenty of air around notes (Sounds basically generates by movement of air, Duh!). The more instruments on stage playing, the more the air movement. Sometimes so much that some high freq can even sound blurred-not so etched) when played in sync with bassey sounds. this is due to interaction of sound field (moved air) This moved air bounces off rear and side walls and propels forward. You can feel the air in your face and body if you are seating in front rows.
I guess I can't see why studio recordings would not have 'some' air during recording sessions. It got to in order to produce sound. May be not as much as normal venue since the walls probably are much absorptive. But there is still lot of air has to be to produce sound/s. So it comes down to recording process and recording equipment and/or Reproducing components. The fact that some components do a good job of reproducing the air tells me that it might be, for the most part ( and recording process to certain extent) the component's design be the culprit, as Ndeslions says. |
unfortunately, today, the first impression...is the only impression. |
I don't think recordings are the main problem.
The problem is that components cheats to give illusion that they extract every bit of data. The more they cheat the less they sound balanced and balance is the key imo.
It's the most important quality. |
one problem is the designers who may be motivated by fear of poor reviews. thus products are designed to extract every bit of data on the recording.
many of the products of 20 + years ago create a more timbrally realistic presentation than those in current production.
as has been said recordings are also part of the problem. |
Learsfool : when i talk about "air" i mean the space between instruments sensation.
I call "atmosphere" what you call "air"... just a problem of words. |
Learsfool, your comments on the "real space" are exactly right. The contribution of the environment in which the recording was made can't be underestimated. IMHO, after the placement of microphones, it's the second critical factor. |
I agree that many audiophiles have completely lost touch with what live music sounds like, in any type of venue, and that it is easier for salesmen to sell the details.
However, Nedslions is I think confusing some of his terms. Granted that audiophiles define terms differently, here are a couple of examples.
When "air" is spoken of, this is usually taken to mean the sense of space that exists in a concert hall or club that surrounds the instruments and audience. This sense of fullness you speak of, Nedslions, and the sense of the sound filling a real space, is what most are talking about when they refer to air, and a system you describe that is "too focused" would be lacking in air. So "air" certainly exists in any live performance venue (though not in most recording studios nowadays, which deliberately eliminate as much air as they can, and are usually "too focused"). Think of air as a component of the soundstage. It is also closely related to what many call "imaging," which is the ability to determine exactly where each individual instrument is located within that space.
A big part of the reason that audiophiles have lost the things you speak of is that most everything is digitally recorded in a dead studio space - this "detailed" sound is much easier to recreate than say a live symphony orchestra in a great concert hall. And even orchestras are not recorded nearly as well nowadays in their halls as they were when everything was still done in analog with tubes, as larryken implies. The truly ironic thing is that this so-called "detailed" sound is actually much less detailed, since so much ambient sound, which is so important to the recreation of live music, is taken away. |
Ndeslions, many things have happened: indeed people have lost contact with the real thing - - unamplified music is not popular. I want the illusion of real musicians playing real instruments in my living room. Getting there is not easy, since so much live music is amplified, and so much recorded music is the processed cheese of amplified instruments recorded and then mixed.
True high fidelity is the presentation of music from real, actual stereo recordings. The playback equipment and speakers sonically disappear.
A while ago, audio writer Jeff Day (who wrote for 6moons, now for PFO) summed up his perspective:
"Hifi equipment that possesses exceptional musicality is equipment that emphasizes the musical aspects of a recorded performance over the non-musical artifacts of the recording process. For example, the timbral signature of a band, the melodic flow of music over time in a song, and delivering the full emotional impact of music are considered to be more important than the exaggeration of the non-musical artifacts of the recording process such as soundstaging, transparency, imaging and extreme detail recovery that has found favor in equipment voiced for audiophiles."
I think Jeff needs to look more closely at the recording process to find the starting point of where things go wrong, but there so much I do agree with.
I believe music lovers can get the very best in audio reproduction, but too many factors are beyond their control. |
Audiophiles that stay in the hobby long term, go through many phases of appreciation....I know I have.
Some things stay with you, because they are important to the enjoyment of music, other things get tossed aside because you find that they are not important to the enjoyment of music...(although they may be interesting...for a while).
You said...."This sound does NOT exist in real life"
Live music:
Small rooms, and small room acoustics, are nothing like large venue, large venue acoustics. Unless you listen to all of your "live music" in your living room (or dedicated room)...forget trying to reproduce "that" sound (it's not going to happen).
pinpoint focus / soundstaging:
Unless you have your speakers spread at least 20' apart, and 15' out...you don't have room for a "real" soundstage. (SACD/DVD-Audio surround, would be as close as you could get).
Recording quality:
The dynamic range of even the best example, is a poor rendition of the real thing. (and probably a good thing...because your components and speakers could not handle it).
I could go on and on...but I won't.
Dave |
another reason to go tubes.
Larry |
It probably happened because audiophiles (as opposed to music lovers?) feel t hey are missing out on something if they cant wring every last iota of detail out of their recordings. I would rather have timbral accuracy and the richness of the body of a cello or acoustic guitar than detail down to the sub-atomic level (ok, only kidding), but if ultra-detail is what you derive ultimate enjoyment from, who are any of us to be nay-sayers?--Mrmitch |
