How does that, er, sound?
B.R. once said, "Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise."
This kind of sums it up for audiophiles desacribing the sound from their systems.
The eternal quandary
Is it the sound or is it the music?
A recent experience. Started to listen to a baroque trio on the main system, harpsichord, bass viol and violin. The harpsichord seems to be positioned to the left of centre, the bass viol to the right, and the violin probably somewhere in the middle. The sound of the two continuo instruments is "larger"/more diffuse than I would expect in "real life". The acoustic is slightly "swimmy". Worse still, impossible to tell if the violinist is standing in front of the continuo instruments, on the same plane as them, or even slightly behind them (in a kind of concave semi-circle). Then that tiny little doubt creeps in: although you want to blame the recording, the acoustic, the recording engineer, the digital recorder, could it be the system that's not quite doing the trick? Could its soundstaging abilities be somehow deficient? After about six shortish tracks I have stop.
Later, I finish listening to the CD on the secondary system. No, the timbral textures are not as fleshed out, no, the sheer presence of the instruments is not as intense, and no, the soundstaging is certainly no better, but I listen through to the end, in main part I think because my expectations are not as high now, and I'm listening to what's being played, not how it's being reproduced.
So are we listening to the sound or the music? Is this why car radios, table-top radios, even secondary systems have a certain, curious advantage over the "big rig"? By having so many expectations for the big rig, are we setting it up for failure? Is that one reason why lots of enthusiasts are on an unending upgrade spiral? Does this experience strike a chord (no pun intended) with anyone else out there?
A recent experience. Started to listen to a baroque trio on the main system, harpsichord, bass viol and violin. The harpsichord seems to be positioned to the left of centre, the bass viol to the right, and the violin probably somewhere in the middle. The sound of the two continuo instruments is "larger"/more diffuse than I would expect in "real life". The acoustic is slightly "swimmy". Worse still, impossible to tell if the violinist is standing in front of the continuo instruments, on the same plane as them, or even slightly behind them (in a kind of concave semi-circle). Then that tiny little doubt creeps in: although you want to blame the recording, the acoustic, the recording engineer, the digital recorder, could it be the system that's not quite doing the trick? Could its soundstaging abilities be somehow deficient? After about six shortish tracks I have stop.
Later, I finish listening to the CD on the secondary system. No, the timbral textures are not as fleshed out, no, the sheer presence of the instruments is not as intense, and no, the soundstaging is certainly no better, but I listen through to the end, in main part I think because my expectations are not as high now, and I'm listening to what's being played, not how it's being reproduced.
So are we listening to the sound or the music? Is this why car radios, table-top radios, even secondary systems have a certain, curious advantage over the "big rig"? By having so many expectations for the big rig, are we setting it up for failure? Is that one reason why lots of enthusiasts are on an unending upgrade spiral? Does this experience strike a chord (no pun intended) with anyone else out there?
- ...
- 34 posts total
- 34 posts total