The Devil is in the Detail

[bonzo75]

I think the thread topic, as introduced in the OP, is about how the industry's new gear is focused on detail and imaging to the detriment of the music. No? Resolution vs. detail is a sub topic added for clarity by some as part of their response to the OP. It is about an holistic versus bits/pieces presentation of the music.

I agree with the focus of the OP and the thread.

It is just that the detail and resolution part is like the nth time around

 

[PeterA]

I agree with the focus of the OP and the thread.

It is just that the detail and resolution part is like the nth time around

That is because when it comes to high end audio and music reproduction, resolution is not as simple as pixel count or some dictionary definition. It is a subject about which people do not seem to agree.

These things used to be presented to us by the main stream magazine press. Now they are debated among hobbyists on the forums.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike I was just trying to inject energy in an otherwise often discussed thread topic.

i do like you getting things stirred up and engaged. thanks.

 

[bonzo75]

i do like you getting things stirred up and engaged. thanks.

You are learning to say it without emoticons

 

[Lee]

That is because when it comes to high end audio and music reproduction, resolution is not as simple as pixel count or some dictionary definition. It is a subject about which people do not seem to agree.

These things used to be presented to us by the main stream magazine press. Now they are debated among hobbyists on the forums.

The high end press talks about resolution all the time. I don't understand why you have to take a swipe at the press at every turn. Forums are just another channel and they are by design more interactive. Both press and online channels are good for the hobby.

 

[Argonaut]

I think the thread topic, as introduced in the OP, is about how the industry's new gear is focused on detail and imaging to the detriment of the music. No? Resolution vs. detail is a sub topic added for clarity by some as part of their response to the OP. It is about an holistic versus bits/pieces presentation of the music.

You appear to wish to present an argument where you want to have it both ways ! In that your * Electronics: Lamm LP1 Signature, Lamm LL1 Signature, Lamm ML2; * are all Prima facia “ Industry new gear “ Ergo a part of this insidious manufacturers plot that you keep warning us about !

 

[PeterA]

The high end press talks about resolution all the time. I don't understand why you have to take a swipe at the press at every turn. Forums are just another channel and they are by design more interactive. Both press and online channels are good for the hobby.

No doubt Lee. My point is that before online audio forums became a popular way to discuss audio related topics, writers at the magazines came up with terms to describe sound. They defined those terms, presented them to us, and used them in their reviews. Our language adopted the new lexicon. Sound was picked apart and dissected, analyzed and written about. The writers PRESENTED the terms to an audience. There was no opportunity to discuss or disagree. There was more or less one voice, and many accepted it. I suspect there were exceptions too.

Today is different. With online audio forums, hobbyists come together to discuss, argue, and evolve their opinions. Members of industry join in because it is where the action is. People can point to the glossary of terms as a reference, but some have a different perspective. They share that perspective and it sparks debate. This is healthy and refreshing, and it is certainly different from the way it was. It also leads to learning when more voices are suddenly involved in the discussion.

I am not swiping at the mainstream press at every turn. I am making an observation. There is a place for both the press and the hobbyists, and people are free to choose what they read and by whom they are influenced. The press is also expanding and evolving as it sees opportunities on sites like this one, on YouTube, and on the net in general. Yes, it is a good thing.

 

[Lee]

No doubt Lee. My point is that before online audio forums became a popular way to discuss audio related topics, writers at the magazines came up with terms to describe sound. They defined those terms, presented them to us, and used them in their reviews. Our language adopted the new lexicon. Sound was picked apart and dissected, analyzed and written about. The writers PRESENTED the terms to an audience. There was no opportunity to discuss or disagree. There was more or less one voice, and many accepted it. I suspect there were exceptions too.

Today is different. With online audio forums, hobbyists come together to discuss, argue, and evolve their opinions. Members of industry join in because it is where the action is. People can point to the glossary of terms as a reference, but some have a different perspective. They share that perspective and it sparks debate. This is healthy and refreshing, and it is certainly different from the way it was. It also leads to learning when more voices are suddenly involved in the discussion.

I am not swiping at the mainstream press at every turn. I am making an observation. There is a place for both the press and the hobbyists, and people are free to choose what they read and by whom they are influenced. The press is also expanding and evolving as it sees opportunities on sites like this one, on YouTube, and on the net in general. Yes, it is a good thing.

I agree 100% that debate is healthy. But having some experienced writers create a baseline of terms is not a bad thing either as long as it is done thoughtfully.

And sincere thanks for recognizing the press is expanding and evolving. I put a good bit of effort into that evolving the past few years.

 

[PeterA]

You appear to wish to present an argument where you want to have it both ways ! In that your * Electronics: Lamm LP1 Signature, Lamm LL1 Signature, Lamm ML2; * are all Prima facia “ Industry new gear “ Ergo a part of this insidious manufacturers plot that you keep warning us about !

You make things so personal Argonaut. I do not see what this post adds to the discussion. Where am I warning the readers about exactly what insidious manufacturer's plot? Where do you come up with this stuff? I simply happen to agree with much of the opening post which references "todays hi-end audio scene". No need to worry, these are only opinions and observations shared by some, based on the posts.

Regarding my specific Lamm electronics: I do not agree that they are "Prima Facia Industry new gear". Yes the components are newer than much of my gear, but they are hardly representative of the current high end gear made today that is referenced in the opening post.

My original ML2 amplifiers were released in 1996, twenty seven years ago, and they are sadly no longer available. It is a shame. The original model has slightly more magic than do later iterations. My original LL1 preamp was released in 2010, thirteen years ago. It too is no longer available. Finally, my LP1 phonostage was bought new this year, but it was first released in 2012, eleven years ago, and its design has not changed. I suppose they are not considered vintage like some of my other gear, but they are certainly not the latest the industry has to offer. You will not see much Lamm gear at audio shows or in the magazines. My turntable is new, but it is a one off, extremely limited item that is no longer for sale.

 

[Argonaut]

You make things so personal Argonaut. I do not see what this post adds to the discussion. Where am I warning the readers about exactly what insidious manufacturer's plot? Where do you come up with this stuff? I simply happen to agree with much of the opening post which references "todays hi-end audio scene". No need to worry, these are only opinions and observations shared by some, based on the posts.

Regarding my specific Lamm electronics: I do not agree that they are "Prima Facia Industry new gear". Yes the components are newer than much of my gear, but they are hardly representative of the current high end gear made today that is referenced in the opening post.

My original ML2 amplifiers were released in 1996, twenty seven years ago, and they are sadly no longer available. It is a shame. The original model has slightly more magic than do later iterations. My original LL1 preamp was released in 2010, thirteen years ago. It too is no longer available. Finally, my LP1 phonostage was bought new this year, but it was first released in 2012, eleven years ago, and its design has not changed. I suppose they are not considered vintage like some of my other gear, but they are certainly not the latest the industry has to offer. You will not see much Lamm gear at audio shows or in the magazines. My turntable is new, but it is a one off, extremely limited item that is no longer for sale.

Not “personal” in the slightest … merely an observation upon your same tired old “Natural Sound “ Rhetoric of old ! Because let’s face it , that is what you are going for here after all … is it not ?

 

[PeterA]

I agree 100% that debate is healthy. But having some experienced writers create a baseline of terms is not a bad thing either as long as it is done thoughtfully.

Lee, yes, debate is healthy. Regarding a baseline of terms not being a bad thing, that depends on whom you ask. Some terms are fine, but too many leads to problems, as we see. This is better discussed elsewhere, but I happen to agree with those who conclude that focusing on such audio terms led to a dissecting of sound into bits and pieces. Some now listen for these bits and pieces and gear is designed for them, at least IMO. This is the heart of the opening post. Karen Sumner, Tima, and others advocate for a reexamining of how we describe what we hear from audio systems.

And sincere thanks for recognizing the press is expanding and evolving. I put a good bit of effort into that evolving the past few years.

Yes, and there are now WBF videos on a dedicated YouTube channel.

 

[ssfas]

i agree to a large part. However there are some historically great performances, the quality of which if you attend every live show, might come once in a few years. These performances were captured on great recordings by great engineers with great equipment and if you want to replay them, you should have a system.

Otherwise a system should only be scratch some itches in a hobby.

but then most people don’t live in a concert - rich city like you and I do. They might not even have restaurants or places to go in those cities. They are stuck at home. In a chair in the center of a room. They have the choice to go fishing to get away from everyone or retreat to a room

On the subject of fishing, the chap in North Yorkshire who designed my turntable was also asked to design a fly fishing reel. The result, combined with his photography, is rather good. This picture was exhibited at Buckingham Palace. I can see the attraction.

 

[dcathro]

I understand.

I did not realize you prefer Peter's definition. In this case my view only will confuse things.

I will bow out.

Sorry Ron, Peter's definition? I have been using the same descriptors throughout the thread. I was just qualifying what constituted the pixels.

Please don't bow out, I would value your opinion!!

 

[dcathro]

Not “personal” in the slightest … merely an observation upon your same tired old “Natural Sound “ Rhetoric of old ! Because let’s face it , that is what you are going for here after all … is it not ?

Just to be clear, this thread is not intended to be about Peter's Natural Sound. I am not advocating any of the equipment, supports, power cords, or other things that Peter mentioned.

 

[Lagonda]

i agree to a large part. However there are some historically great performances, the quality of which if you attend every live show, might come once in a few years. These performances were captured on great recordings by great engineers with great equipment and if you want to replay them, you should have a system.

Otherwise a system should only be scratch some itches in a hobby.

but then most people don’t live in a concert - rich city like you and I do. They might not even have restaurants or places to go in those cities. They are stuck at home. In a chair in the center of a room. They have the choice to go fishing to get away from everyone or retreat to a room

And some people, my self included, just don't care for this kind of music, and would only go to classical concerts at gunpoint after having been dosed intravenously with massive amounts of caffeine !

 

[ssfas]

Was interesting to read a while back in a Dave Hurwitz review (can’t remember which one unfortunately) a discussion about the context of music written to be performed in previous periods and the significant increasing size of performance spaces since then and how the experience is changed in terms of detail versus blending of the sound. That baroque and romantic period music was traditionally written to be experienced in smaller spaces and that chamber music was mostly about experiencing music in homes as an intimate participant or as a player yourself right in the middle of it all. Also changing from period to contemporary instruments has shifted other aspects of timbre and tone. How detailed live music is for us is such a highly variable issue of the context of design and nature of performance spaces for sure.

Jordan Savall has often recorded early music in the venue in which it was originally performed. Lang Lang did the same with Bach's Goldberg Variations.

I do enjoy Bach and Handel at St Martins-in-the-Fields and St John's Smith Square. Both churches built in the early 1700s, so contemporary to the music, excellent acoustics, often quite cold in the winter which adds to the 18th century experience.

 

[ssfas]

And some people, my self included, just don't care for this kind of music, and would only go to classical concerts at gunpoint after having been dosed intravenously with massive amounts of caffeine !

My diet is far from exclusively classical. Give me a geomungo any day of the week.

My single favourite company is L-E-V, run by Sharon Eyal and Gai Behar (he's a DJ) and much of the music is by Ori Lichtik.
Check out the video on this page. Turn the volume up to 110.

L-E-V - REPERTOIRE - KILLER PIG

www.sharoneyaldance.com

It's very intense, very loud and normal performed in intense venues, often car parks, which add to the effect. For those who've been to London, this one was in the Selfridges car park.

There's a bit of video from this show here:

With regard to this sort of thing, the devil is very much in the detail and it's a one off experience.

 

[PeterA]

Just to be clear, this thread is not intended to be about Peter's Natural Sound. I am not advocating any of the equipment, supports, power cords, or other things that Peter mentioned.

I completely agree. Moon unit brought up the gear I just had to set the record straight. Moving along.

 

[the sound of Tao]

I don't know if such music was written to be played in smaller spaces. Rather it was played in available spaces according to the number of musicians / orchestration required. Baroque was often found at court or church, with 10-30 players. For larger orchestras in the Classical period, sometimes as large as 120 performers, that often meant theaters, sometimes known as opera houses. As you say, acoustics were as variable as those today. Beethoven's 5th Symphony was debuted at the Theater an der Wien in 1808, one of the largest and most luxurious spaces of its day, which originally seated 2000. Schubert wrote a lot of haus music and indeed Schubertians (not the followers but the events, typically a music party) were held in parlors of patrons.

As much as performance space plays a role in what we hear, I'm thinking that recording microphone technique does so as well. I don't know who pioneered multi-mic'ing but Deutsche Grammophon certainly lavished in it, trying to capture more detail from individual sections and performers -- holism gets reconstructed by engineers and this may be quite different than what is heard by an audience in the loge. Compare that approach to the simplicity of the 3 omnidirectional microphone technique tree used extensively at Mercury by Wilma Fine. At Decca their 3 mic tree would hang over the conductor's head with other microphones placed to capture soloists and choruses. The relative balance of "sonic attributes" was in the hands of less or more talented people at the mixing boards. Is there an analog to those engineers for a stereo system? Where does the balance come from?

At DG and with both the Berlin and Vienna Philharmonic Orchestras Karajan was absolutely influential and both the orchestras and DG strived to always achieve what became known as the Karajan sound… big, burnished, classically beautiful in one giant orchestrated sweep. I remember reading that members of the Berlin Phil were later horrified when Claudio Abbado came along and tried to get them to express moments of harshness or uglier moments in music making.

Karajan was also famed for completely championing new technology in recording and involving any techniques that allowed him to have more and more control over the shaping of the sound beyond just his conducting of it. He was a controlling producer force majeur in the recording studio and preferred the control of studio environment to doing live recordings which was more of a feature of the years earlier with Furtwängler.

The post modernist era in art, music and architecture from the later 60’s onwards was very much about artistic freedom and interpretation and wasn’t anywhere near as more tightly functionally controlled in contrast to the previous modernist era where process was driven by clear functional rules about what was best or right. Notions like clear simple fidelity and authenticity fell away as people played around with sound more and more. The desire for more and more creative freedom and more layered approaches like multi track recording and then the arrival of the digital era led us away from simpler less complex approaches. Coherence was the first casualty in the age of creative and technical complexity.

 

[the sound of Tao]

And some people, my self included, just don't care for this kind of music, and would only go to classical concerts at gunpoint after having been dosed intravenously with massive amounts of caffeine !

Here’s a big one Milan… choice of two… an hour listening to Mahler OR being hog-tied in a room full of people debating audiophile semantics…