The Devil is in the Detail

[adrianywu]

I don't think there is one correct way to present recorded music. I have been very fortunate to be involved with a project to introduce chamber music to Hong Kong audience from the start. I have been a sponsor, and the project has grown and is now attracting top notch young international artists to perform at our city. As sponsors, we often also get to hear the artists in a more intimate setting, usually at someone's home. Therefore, we can compare their performances at the concert hall to those performed in a salon setting. The experience is completely different. One can hear so much more detail in the smaller setting, and every little nuance can be perceived. Chamber music and instrumental recitals should really be performed in this kind of setting to appreciate the individuality of the performances. I think recording is the same. I was comparing many different violin concerto recordings last night. I listened to movements of the Tchaikovsky by Heifetz (RCA) and Kogan (EMI Columbia); Bruch Scottish Fantasy by D. Oistrakh (Decca); Bruch no. 1 by Ferras (EMI). I will also examine recordings of Szeryng by Mercury tonight. The differences in recording technique are very obvious. Some chose to present the soloist as the main attraction (the EMI recordings), whereas the others tend to blend the soloist more with the orchestra (RCA and Decca). I think there is no correct way but none approximates what is heard in a concert hall.

 

[Ron Resnick]

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!!

I attributed this definition of resolution to Peter because he was the first person I saw define resolution this way a year or two ago. We had long debates about the definition back then.

I didn't realize you use the same definition until the post to which I replied.

 

[tima]

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.

Sony President Norio Ohga convinces HvK - Perfekter Sound für immer !



Ja, ja - Beethoven's 9th must fit on one side.

 

[dcathro]

I attributed this definition of resolution to Peter because he was the first person I saw define resolution this way a year or two ago. We had long debates about the definition back then.

I didn't realize you use the same definition until the post to which I replied.

Hi Ron I must have missed those debates, please let me explain my thinking a little more.

Think of the music as a flowing moving dynamic tapestry that has colour and form, as the resolution increases we see more of all those attributes - that is, deeper colours, more movement and greater resolution of the form. It doesn't sound vastly different, but we get to feel more of it.

Interestingly, in my experience, I have found the reproduction quality of systems to have a pyramid like form. That is low quality systems, at the base of the pyramid, tend to sound alike with difficulty differentiating differences - so substituting any one component (for similar quality) does not lead to much difference. I believe this is why so many have this experience that "all cables sound alike" or "all digital sounds the same".

As the gear has greater resolving power, we move up the pyramid and the cross section gets smaller, the changes and differences get more obvious. We have more musical energy and any difference in this energy becomes obvious when we make changes. If you go up higher and higher to the most resolving equipment with dedicated mains, treated room, etc, then the pyramid has become very small (almost like a point) and the changes are not just obvious, they have become difficult to manage with setup becoming ultra critical. More musical energy has to be managed to ensure that it maintains the shape and form of the tapestry of the music we are trying to reproduce. If the energy is not tuned in the right way then the music changes.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hi Ron I must have missed those debates, please let me explain my thinking a little more.

Think of the music as a flowing moving dynamic tapestry that has colour and form, as the resolution increases we see more of all those attributes - that is, deeper colours, more movement and greater resolution of the form. It doesn't sound vastly different, but we get to feel more of it.

Interestingly, in my experience, I have found the reproduction quality of systems to have a pyramid like form. That is low quality systems, at the base of the pyramid, tend to sound alike with difficulty differentiating differences - so substituting any one component (for similar quality) does not lead to much difference. I believe this is why so many have this experience that "all cables sound alike" or "all digital sounds the same".

As the gear has greater resolving power, we move up the pyramid and the cross section gets smaller, the changes and differences get more obvious. We have more musical energy and any difference in this energy becomes obvious when we make changes. If you go up higher and higher to the most resolving equipment with dedicated mains, treated room, etc, then the pyramid has become very small (almost like a point) and the changes are not just obvious, they have become difficult to manage with setup becoming ultra critical. More musical energy has to be managed to ensure that it maintains the shape and form of the tapestry of the music we are trying to reproduce. If the energy is not tuned in the right way then the music changes.

I think this is stated eloquently. I just don't choose to use this as my preferred definition of "resolution."

Here is the earlier discussion: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/what-do-we-mean-by-resolution.33785/

 

[bonzo75]

Hi Ron I must have missed those debates

lucky you

 

[morricab]

I don't think there is one correct way to present recorded music. I have been very fortunate to be involved with a project to introduce chamber music to Hong Kong audience from the start. I have been a sponsor, and the project has grown and is now attracting top notch young international artists to perform at our city. As sponsors, we often also get to hear the artists in a more intimate setting, usually at someone's home. Therefore, we can compare their performances at the concert hall to those performed in a salon setting. The experience is completely different. One can hear so much more detail in the smaller setting, and every little nuance can be perceived. Chamber music and instrumental recitals should really be performed in this kind of setting to appreciate the individuality of the performances. I think recording is the same. I was comparing many different violin concerto recordings last night. I listened to movements of the Tchaikovsky by Heifetz (RCA) and Kogan (EMI Columbia); Bruch Scottish Fantasy by D. Oistrakh (Decca); Bruch no. 1 by Ferras (EMI). I will also examine recordings of Szeryng by Mercury tonight. The differences in recording technique are very obvious. Some chose to present the soloist as the main attraction (the EMI recordings), whereas the others tend to blend the soloist more with the orchestra (RCA and Decca). I think there is no correct way but none approximates what is heard in a concert hall.

This is exactly my issue with using large orchestral works as a reference for a system sound. 1) They are by necessity heavily compressed in order to fit dynamically onto the recording medium. 2) They are often not representative of what is heard live at most listening positions. 3) Many are "manufactured" performances with lots of cuts and engineers "blending" direct and ambient microphones. 4) The scale of these performance simply makes them not realistic through every stereo on the planet, IMO.

There are a few exceptions, at least for the recording quality, like the recording I have of Prokovfiev's Romeo and Juliet that was captured with a single stereo ribbon microphone (Royer Labs) with minimal EQ and minimal compression. This one truly sounds like a live performance if you were to sit about 20 feet (6m) from the stage. There may be some other minimalist ones out there but none where I also know the conditions of the recording like I do this one.

A small ensemble; on the other hand, can be readily recorded without much manipulation and if you are in an intimate setting, such as a home living room, then it can be quite representative of what is on a recording, which is also likely recorded up close. I have had good success in replicating a live feel with very good string quartet or piano trio recordings, for example, where the presence, detail, dynamics and venue acoustics come through in a convincing fashion.

 

[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.

Presumably you are able to advise us by providing examples of “ the industry's new gear “ which are “ focused on detail and imaging to the detriment of the music.” To which manufacturers are you referring ? perhaps a few examples where you have personally been exposed to this new style of equipment might bring a little clarity to what you are saying ?

 

[andromedaaudio]

To me the best example this can go hand in hand was the Rockport Lyra / CH precision 10 series demo .

The best natural representation of " musical detail " i ve heard

 

[morricab]

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 !

I just KNEW that you were a heretic! Burn the heretic! Or better, strap him in a chair and make him listen to some Shoshtakovich at volume 11 on loop for days on end...like at Gitmo

 

[andromedaaudio]

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 !

I have been a couple of times to classsical concerts .
I was surprised how dull and overdampned it sounded .
I might enjoy it more if i had seat upfront

 

[bonzo75]

I have been a couple of times to classsical concerts .
I was surprised how dull and overdampned it sounded .

You should have started your audio commentary, everyone else would have left and the sound would become more like your room.

 

[the sound of Tao]

This is exactly my issue with using large orchestral works as a reference for a system sound. 1) They are by necessity heavily compressed in order to fit dynamically onto the recording medium. 2) They are often not representative of what is heard live at most listening positions. 3) Many are "manufactured" performances with lots of cuts and engineers "blending" direct and ambient microphones. 4) The scale of these performance simply makes them not realistic through every stereo on the planet, IMO.

There are a few exceptions, at least for the recording quality, like the recording I have of Prokovfiev's Romeo and Juliet that was captured with a single stereo ribbon microphone (Royer Labs) with minimal EQ and minimal compression. This one truly sounds like a live performance if you were to sit about 20 feet (6m) from the stage. There may be some other minimalist ones out there but none where I also know the conditions of the recording like I do this one.

A small ensemble; on the other hand, can be readily recorded without much manipulation and if you are in an intimate setting, such as a home living room, then it can be quite representative of what is on a recording, which is also likely recorded up close. I have had good success in replicating a live feel with very good string quartet or piano trio recordings, for example, where the presence, detail, dynamics and venue acoustics come through in a convincing fashion.

Smaller and even medium sized speakers (and especially in smaller rooms) are always going to struggle to approach the required ability to scale up and energise a room to create the necessary scale for large orchestral pieces… dynamics definitely plays in here as well. But I don’t think we should hide away from that by limiting ourselves to testing the capacity of speakers and setups by just feeding them with violin sonatas and small acoustic jazz… it’s the kind of things guys with small full range drivers in open baffles invariably put up for videos. Sometimes we have to scale up with seriously large orchestral forces or big rock to see where systems go when really put to the test with big real music. Hiding behind unchallenging and whispy audiophile music references is kind of shying away from the truth.

 

[rando]

Enjoyed the parking structure video @ssfas

Hardly the type of environment tube + SET or a digital source feeding mix of Jazz and Rock biased equipment recreates in a listening room.

 

[dcathro]

I think this is stated eloquently. I just don't choose to use this as my preferred definition of "resolution."

Here is the earlier discussion: https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/what-do-we-mean-by-resolution.33785/

OK, I think I get where you are coming from, which is resolution does not mean, as I said, that it "preserves the form of the music". but just provides more information.

I put it above that systems higher up the food chain provide more musical energy (information) that becomes harder to manage in order to keep the musical form intact. You could argue that all those systems are more resolving, but to my mind without skillful setup/tuning to manage/control that extra energy they are taking us away from the music - which is where I see systems producing extraneous detail.

So that is where I see resolution as being different to detail.

 

[DasguteOhr]

Smaller and even medium sized speakers (and especially in smaller rooms) are always going to struggle to approach the required ability to scale up and energise a room to create the necessary scale for large orchestral pieces… dynamics definitely plays in here as well. But I don’t think we should hide away from that by limiting ourselves to testing the capacity of speakers and setups by just feeding them with violin sonatas and small acoustic jazz… it’s the kind of things guys with small full range drivers in open baffles invariably put up for videos. Sometimes we have to scale up with seriously large orchestral forces or big rock to see where systems go when really put to the test with big real music. Hiding behind unchallenging and whispy audiophile music references is kind of shying away from the truth.

Dynamics have something to do with the recording and the electronics that process it. The loudspeaker plays a minor role. If your signal source and amplification don't have enough headroom, a large speaker won't work too.
You should listen to an audioplan kontrapunkt and what it is capable of when operated correctly. I bet you would be sitting there with your mouth open wondering how it works. Orchestral music has a dynamic range of 12-20dB, which doesn't pose any major problems for amps with small speakers. But with large speakers that are power-hungry or have poor impedance, this quickly becomes a problem.

 

[bonzo75]

Smaller and even medium sized speakers (and especially in smaller rooms) are always going to struggle to approach the required ability to scale up and energise a room to create the necessary scale for large orchestral pieces… dynamics definitely plays in here as well. But I don’t think we should hide away from that by limiting ourselves to testing the capacity of speakers and setups by just feeding them with violin sonatas and small acoustic jazz… it’s the kind of things guys with small full range drivers in open baffles invariably put up for videos.

There was a time when I thought chamber is easily reproduced by small or simple systems (quads, martin logans, etc) and big tall speakers are required for full symphony to do large wide scale side to side, deep behind, with a lot of separation.

This is usually true with digital and meh records. Which the guys with full range drivers in OB often use in videos.

With good records, the best symphonies I heard were Mayer 46 - Pnoe, as was the chamber. Not that the Pnoe is a small speaker, it is quite tall and big, but it is a single driver. My videos from Bill on Beethoven 7th and Scheherazade depict some of that magic – many did tell me that was their favorite Scheherazade video (thus agreeing with in-room impressions).

Yes big dual FLHs can do both as well.

But so can small O96s and Audionec evo2s if run properly with good records, as can the Diesis with the all Kondo system. They allow very simple signal paths projecting the scale from the recording rather than imposing it due to speaker size. Therefore they rise and fall and ebb with the music rather than Yo girl, look how biiiig I am – the girl does not want a guy a who stays in competition pose throughout the date. And the speaker scale can never be better than the scale of, for example, a well recorded Decca. And it is not that the well recorded Decca plays bigger in a bigger system than a smaller system, it plays bigger in a better system, which could be small or big

Sometimes we have to scale up with seriously large orchestral forces or big rock to see where systems go when really put to the test with big real music. Hiding behind unchallenging and whispy audiophile music references is kind of shying away from the truth.

I agree.

The other thing is the more you appreciate solo, partitas, duos, trios, quartets, X-tets, etc.. . the number of well recorded good performances is much higher than for full symphony, and they have their own challenges in reproduction.

From a system testing perspective, while I do not like the idea of being comfortable auditioning only small chamber and ignoring large orchestra, I do not like the idea that some people play a big symphony like Firebird Suite only to hear the loud tympani and some separation, and large size, then do not go about auditioning smaller scale music which also is an effective system test.

 

[morricab]

Smaller and even medium sized speakers (and especially in smaller rooms) are always going to struggle to approach the required ability to scale up and energise a room to create the necessary scale for large orchestral pieces… dynamics definitely plays in here as well. But I don’t think we should hide away from that by limiting ourselves to testing the capacity of speakers and setups by just feeding them with violin sonatas and small acoustic jazz… it’s the kind of things guys with small full range drivers in open baffles invariably put up for videos. Sometimes we have to scale up with seriously large orchestral forces or big rock to see where systems go when really put to the test with big real music. Hiding behind unchallenging and whispy audiophile music references is kind of shying away from the truth.

For listening pleasure by all means listen to big orchestral pieces. I do as well...not saying one shouldn't listen to them. I am saying that there is NO system existent in the world of home audio, at least, that can properly support accurately large classical works...this is also a recording problem not just a system problem. But they all fail ultimately.

A properly recorded and played back violin sonata, string quartet, piano quintet etc. will stress any speaker system out there and only medium/large systems are likely to do them justice as heard live. Small speaker systems will fail here as well for realistic reproduction. That is not the same as saying they can't make pleasing or even tonally accurate playback...they for sure can but scale and dynamics of even small ensembles is far more powerful than most here appreciate.

No one is talking about unchallenging and whispy audiophile music (whatever that is). No compressed pop girl with a guitar. Try to reproduce a proper Flamenco recording at live levels with a small system.

I am saying that when you evaluate a system, rather than try to judge it with works where it will fail, again also due to the compromises in the recordings to get them within the limits of the recording tech, judge it with works where it should stand a chance of giving a realistic presentation...and then see if it actually does.

 

[mtemur]

Sony President Norio Ohga convinces HvK - Perfekter Sound für immer !

View attachment 118314

Ja, ja - Beethoven's 9th must fit on one side.

IMHO analog laserdisc is the biggest missed opportunity in the hi-fi scene blocked by Cd and aggressive advertisement. Laserdisc is an analog video format.

 

[morricab]

There was a time when I thought chamber is easily reproduced by small or simple systems (quads, martin logans, etc) and big tall speakers are required for full symphony to do large wide scale side to side, deep behind, with a lot of separation.

This is usually true with digital and meh records. Which the guys with full range drivers in OB often use in videos.

With good records, the best symphonies I heard were Mayer 46 - Pnoe, as was the chamber. Not that the Pnoe is a small speaker, it is quite tall and big, but it is a single driver. My videos from Bill on Beethoven 7th and Scheherazade depict some of that magic – many did tell me that was their favorite Scheherazade video (thus agreeing with in-room impressions).

Yes big dual FLHs can do both as well.

But so can small O96s and Audionec evo2s if run properly with good records, as can the Diesis with the all Kondo system. They allow very simple signal paths projecting the scale from the recording rather than imposing it due to speaker size. Therefore they rise and fall and ebb with the music rather than Yo girl, look how biiiig I am – the girl does not want a guy a who stays in competition pose throughout the date. And the speaker scale can never be better than the scale of, for example, a well recorded Decca. And it is not that the well recorded Decca plays bigger in a bigger system than a smaller system, it plays bigger in a better system, which could be small or big



I agree.

The other thing is the more you appreciate solo, partitas, duos, trios, quartets, X-tets, etc.. . the number of well recorded good performances is much higher than for full symphony, and they have their own challenges in reproduction.

From a system testing perspective, while I do not like the idea of being comfortable auditioning only small chamber and ignoring large orchestra, I do not like the idea that some people play a big symphony like Firebird Suite only to hear the loud tympani and some separation, and large size, then do not go about auditioning smaller scale music which also is an effective system test.

Yes, the relatively high number of good chamber recordings and variety of configurations recorded, means one can really stress a system with high dynamic range music with high resolution and ambient acoustics. By all means throw in a Stravinsky, Mahler or whatever as there are a few recordings with sufficient dynamic range to make them interesting but probably not at realistic levels. You can also do smaller ensembles at realistic volume levels that won't drive you out of the room.

IMO, they are also quite superior at listening to the inner resolution of discrete instruments that gets washed out with massed instruments (the recording quality again helps a lot here).