The Devil is in the Detail

[morricab]

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.

I have heard this before but haven't heard them in so long that it is hard to know if it is really true or not.

 

[Lagonda]

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…

Just shoot me now !

 

[bonzo75]

Just shoot me now !

but then you will never know what the agreement was on the definition of resolution

 

[andromedaaudio]

being hog-tied in a room full of people debating audiophile semantics…

The CIA uses this method as a last resort to get prisoners talking .

 

[andromedaaudio]

Listen more talk less

 

[andromedaaudio]

I guess i m not qualified

Listening is giving attention to a sound. When listening, a person hears what others are saying and tries to understand what it means. Listening in conversation. Listening involves complex affective, cognitive, and behavioral processes.

 

[Argonaut]

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.

But … If those micro cues and details are captured on the recording , and therefore integral to that audio snapshot in time, how can they be considered as “extraneous “

 

[ssfas]

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.

LEV / Sharon Eyal tours the world, she started with Bathsheva Dance, as did musician/choreographer Hofesh Shechter. They both put on shows in theatres as well as car parks (but I prefer car parks). Shechter did the loudest show I've ever been to, made Radiohead sound like a tea party.
Try this for size, jump to the middle to get an idea. I saw it twice, it was so popular he reprised it with a Director's Cut. Definitely not for tube amps.

Shechter has also choreographed for the Royal Ballet and the Royal Opera. The best was this Orphee & Eurydice with John Eliot Gardiner, which was also performed at La Scala, and is available on DVD. It was completely amazing. Juan Diego Flores in the lead.

This is another section, just spectacular, the orchestra was on a massive platform the width of the stage and was going up and down all night, sometime below stage level, sometimes 20 feet above it. You don't see this every day of the week.

Opera isn't always just fat ladies singing. And they aren't fat these days either, the gorgeous Lisette Oropesa runs marathons.

I don't think anything defines getting the details right more than a production like this, a full scale opera and dance show, with full orchestra and two choirs.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

a few years ago I heard The Flying Dutchman with a 120 people choir unplugged outdoor on a big old fortress just out in the fjord 15 minutes from home
there´s an atrium in center of fortress with 12-15m high brick wall
never forget the sheer power from that choir

 

[dcathro]

But … If those micro cues and details are captured on the recording , and therefore integral to that audio snapshot in time, how can they be considered as “extraneous “

Let's take a recording with a female vocal, on one hi end system the vocal is full and rich with occasional sibilance. On a different hi end system the vocal is not as rich and has more pronounced sibilance. The sibilance is there in the recording, but with the first system it is less prominent. is the extra sibilance additional resolution or extraneous detail?

 

[PeterA]

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 ?

You should be directing your questions to dcathro who wrote this in the very first sentence of the opening post:

"I believe that today's hi-end audio scene is overly focused on detail, and imaging to it's detriment."

Why am I the only one whose ankles you are biting? Based on my own experience in my room with my system, it starts with power delivery. Here is a start for you: JPS In-Wall wires. Huge mistake from advice I followed from a dealer. I also noticed excessive focus, enhancement, spotlighting of high frequencies and images from a Zenwave power cable, a Furutech IEC connector, and my full suite of Transparent Audio cables. The demo MIT speaker cables I took home did this too. I also had Stillpoint footers, borrowed from a friend, in my system for a couple days. They do exactly what dcathro describes. ASC TubeTraps also removed information and energy from the room, the result of which was an emphasis on detail and increased contrast for artificial images. All of these products, IMO, produced a presentation in my room similar to that described in the original post.

Enhancing or removing information results in a less balanced, and therefore, less natural presentation. The music became secondary to the spectacle of spotlighting bits and pieces of the sound. Call it what you want: less natural, less believable, less real, less convincing, all in my opinion.

Micro claims "some are anti-detail and anti-imaging". In reality, I do not know anyone who is anti-detail and anti-imaging. dcathro wrote "overly focused on..." That is the issue here. This whole discussion is about opinions. People choose to buy the gear they want and perhaps they will get the presentation they prefer. Or they move on. It is a hobby, and as Ron might say, arguing here is a sub hobby.

 

[morricab]

Let's take a recording with a female vocal, on one hi end system the vocal is full and rich with occasional sibilance. On a different hi end system the vocal is not as rich and has more pronounced sibilance. The sibilance is there in the recording, but with the first system it is less prominent. is the extra sibilance additional resolution or extraneous detail?

It's neither...it is a form of distortion.

 

[bonzo75]

Let's take a recording with a female vocal, on one hi end system the vocal is full and rich with occasional sibilance. On a different hi end system the vocal is not as rich and has more pronounced sibilance. The sibilance is there in the recording, but with the first system it is less prominent. is the extra sibilance additional resolution or extraneous detail?

How can you choose a system that will let you hide extra unwanted stuff on one recording and if it is wanted, let it through - it needs to let through the recording. And then if you don't like something, e.g. sibilance, choose a recording without it.

 

[Robh3606]

Let's take a recording with a female vocal, on one hi end system the vocal is full and rich with occasional sibilance. On a different hi end system the vocal is not as rich and has more pronounced sibilance. The sibilance is there in the recording, but with the first system it is less prominent. is the extra sibilance additional resolution or extraneous detail?

Sounds like a frequency response difference between two speaker systems. One or both could be "wrong" and not sound like the original.
You are simply guessing at which one is "right" and your preference will decide which is which.

Rob

 

[Al M.]

How can you choose a system that will let you hide extra unwanted stuff on one recording and if it is wanted, let it through - it needs to let through the recording. And then if you don't like something, e.g. sibilance, choose a recording without it.

Indeed, if you adjust your system so that even the nastiest recording will still sound "pleasant", the end result will be that everything else sounds dull --- and endlessly boring, thus unmusical.

 

[morricab]

How can you choose a system that will let you hide extra unwanted stuff on one recording and if it is wanted, let it through - it needs to let through the recording. And then if you don't like something, e.g. sibilance, choose a recording without it.

And if the system adds it? Or by subtraction of body and decay accentuates leading edges? It is a problem at both ends of the chain.

 

[bonzo75]

And if the system adds it? Or by subtraction of body and decay accentuates leading edges? It is a problem at both ends of the chain.

he gave a recording example.

your examples are system examples

 

[morricab]

he gave a recording example.

your examples are system examples

No, he talks about a recording on two different systems...one full and rich and the other overly sibilant. Is it the recording or the system then? Could be one or the other...perhaps the full and rich one is overly dull with many other recordings...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

system balance starts with avoidance of coloration fundamentally. ideally you have enough different sources to determine neutrality of gear and variance of media. yet also not all systems can sort out the complex thick soundscapes and make sense of them equally. sibilance is a bit of a different issue. you can do a lot of regressive damage focusing on a couple recordings and trying to 'fix' them. but is it the recording? the specific media? you need lot's of recordings maybe to figure that out.

one of my big things is avoiding any sameness across all recordings, whether pleasing or not. reduced detail/nuance/musical rightness on peaks is eventually the cost of dumbing down your system, or a very limited musical horizon.

but there are no wrong ways to do it. be happy.

 

[bonzo75]

No, he talks about a recording on two different systems...one full and rich and the other overly sibilant. Is it the recording or the system then? Could be one or the other...perhaps the full and rich one is overly dull with many other recordings...

yes but he says the sibilance is there in the recording