No more "High End" for me...Back to Reality Audio

In the distant past I never questioned whether High End equals High Fidelity. And then it has happened to me (in 2002) that I heard a guitar recording (made with my guitar) that my musician friend made (without processing or editing, straight recording, only level was adjusted). I have listened to him play the guitar between my speakers and the recording to compare one right after the other. 

I think very few have the chance for such hard core comparison for fidelity, with an instrument I intimately know, and my musician friend, whose playing I have enjoyed for uncounted hours in my lifetime. Plus, unadultered recording that allows looking into fidelity.

Through my system at that time I had no trouble identifying the exact guitar on the recording - after two notes I knew on which guitar he picked for the recording. (He has about a dozen guitars, all with different tones.) My system gave about 90% of the detail level of the actual guitar being played. The tonality was right, the perspective was right, the image projected was same size as the real guitar. The recording proved to be high fidelity, giving me 90% of the original sound. Now, this was through a heavily modded Dynaco stereo 70 - Fostex Voigt pipes - heavily hot-rodded purist all-silver PAS3 preamp - heavily modded Micromega Stage 3 CD player system - al DIY cabling including PCs (all DIY, yours truly).

The "High End" comparison was BAT and Wilson speakers, and I forgot which very high end CD player & transport & MIT cabling - it was SOTA at that time, and the league of the most expensive High End one could put together in that year. What I heard was very striking, and also a tremendous blow to the head forcing a MAJOR reality check and reorientation of my goals. Yes, there was a jump in detail level, but it did not sound anymore like listening to my guitar from the listeners position. It sounded as if I stuck my head within one foot of the guitar (yes, I have done such experimentation with real guitars). The tonal balance was totally askew, and I did not recognize my guitar anymore. If I was asked to tell which of his guitars he played the recording, I could not have guessed it because it sounded like none of his guitars. And the closest pick would have been a guitar that had a distinctly different tone.

So, while it was evident to all that the HE system in question provided a much higher resolution / detail level, it was also obvious that it completely failed at delivering both the tonality and the perspective / spatial balance, and in general, the EXPERIENCE of the recorded actual guitar.

This experience taught me that High End does not necessarily equals High Fidelity.

Since then, I've been investigating what is the difference between "High End" approach and "High Fidelity" which we could call "Reality" or "Real World Audio" (hence my moniker.... LOL.)

The key components necessary to provide High Fidelity AND high detail level: no feedback, efficient loudspeakers, as short signal path as possible. The more we deviate from this path, the easier it gets to get ultra-detail&freq range &SPL but at the price of the tonal balance. 

To me, tonal balance is essential, and in my experience is the singular parameter that makes or breaks High End to behave as a show host or the translator of reality.

I can relate to what the poster is saying.  Over the last 55 years, I've upgraded my system about 3 times.  Currently I've been on a splurge to create my "final" system. I recently purchased a McIntosh 352 hybrid integrated amp ($5,000 after trading in my McIntosh MA6900 integrated), Bryston BCD-3 ($4,100), Soekris R2R DAC ($1,200), Nordost Tyr speaker cables (purchased used at Audiogon for $4,400 for a 4 meter run),   Synergistic digital cable and interconnects feeding into a Focal 1027 Electra purchased in 2007 at a discount for $5,000, Shunyata power conditioner bought from Audiogon for under $1,000.   Reatively speaking, not an outrageously priced system. My Focals sound great but now this final addiction has me looking at the Focal Sopra 2's at $22k!    I seriously wonder (i) whether I should quit right now with which,  to my ears, is a wonderful sounding system, and (ii) joining a 12-step program for audioholics.

Personally, I'm out on the limb sawing it between me and the trunk to see if I can levitate....*G*

It beats the usual pursuits and nobody else seems to be trying to do so...reasonably assured that I won't croak in the attempt anyway. *L*

(If one asks '...wtf are you up to?', I'm good with that, too.  Stealth is fun in it's way...) 😏

@realworldaudio - I really enjoyed your post. I love acoustic guitar and play as a hobby. Recently I found myself thinking my system sounds really good with acoustic instruments, to my ears anyway. I have a couple different amps and preamps so now I can really experiment based on your post! I have wondered about volume levels, i.e. if someone were playing acoustic between my speakers, would my system sound real if the speaker volume was the same as the guitar? Thanks again for the post!

@moofoo For me a big part of growing towards "natural sound" was going for higher and higher efficiency speakers. The common view of high efficiency speakers is that they give you "more SPL for your watts". However, there's something fundamental happening: a 112dB/Wm loudspeaker gives us the same dynamic resolution (dynamics shading / range) as the live event does. The lower we get with loudspeaker efficiency, the more compressed the reproduction is, and as a consequence it looses "life" compared to the real instrument. A loudspeaker with 102dB/Wm is although considered ultra-efficient but it already imposes 10dB of dynamic compression to what is encoded on the recording, hence, it will already sound a little less live (=more compressed) than the instrument it reflects. 10dB compression in itself is already significant, as the dynamics has been compressed 10 times in power. Sadly, that is on the verge of what is achievable today with a loudspeaker cabinet the size of a healthy refrigerator, and it's about the limit what a normal person can squeeze into a large room.

However, looking at an average loudspeaker today of reasonably high sensitivity of 89dB/Wm, we get a whopping 23dB of dynamic compression, that is, we get 0,5% of the actual dynamic range! Even worse, most of the current high end loudspeakers roll today around 83dB/Wm (most of the sensitivity ratings are vastly inflated - when you see dB/2.83V/m & low impedance dip, that's the warning that the dB/Wm is often 5-6dB below the dB/Vm spec.) With 83dB/Wm there is a 29dB dynamic compression, that is, the information is coming at an almost x1000 energy compression. This has two consequences:

1. it will not sound like the real instrument - will have less life, radiancy, freedom in the sound. Even though all the textural information is there, it seems to be "resolved", and images sharply, but the dynamic information is severely compressed. Changing volume does not alter this fact, just changes the SPL at which this compressed material rides.

2. When set to same peak SPL as the real instrument, it will sound way more dense, forceful, "tight", "heavy", and tiring as to achieve the same peak SPL, the median energy output has to be much higher. The sounds that would have been soft are now compressed into the loud band. This makes sounds in the middle of the dynamic range more pronounced, and thereby the listener does experience it a an enhancement of sound quality by hearing fainter sounds more prominent. Yet, the very soft part of the dynamic range is lost, and the very low detail level is gone. This is obvious for experienced listeners, and is perhaps the most important aspect that distances real music instrument sound from recorded / played back compressed material.

Cheers,

Janos