I don't want to argue with you. I know it is sooo hard to stay close to a topic for some. This is a not a tool or measurement thread. Check the OP if you forgot.
Forget it Jake, it's Audiophile
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
I don't want to argue with you. I know it is sooo hard to stay close to a topic for some. This is a not a tool or measurement thread. Check the OP if you forgot.
Your quite right that bumps in the 3.5- 5 kHz zone are to our Ears very sensitive corresponding to the resonance frequency of the ear canal a second peak at 13.5 kHz which is thought to be the 3rd Harmonic of the resonance
our perception of sound is a combination of on and off axis responses/reflections
however there is also as well described by JA what our ears “hook onto” in a speakers response
my own work with crossovers this past year has demonstrated to me at least that one needs to look at bass and mid bass balance to any high-frequency alterations, it’s not all about one octave on its own
its part of my natural sound learning experience that these factors are important , but probably a subset of this discussion which is conceptual rather than operational/electromechanical
speakers that I have encountered which seem intrinsically natural get this balance correct , I have found a number of “Hifi” speakers emphases the treble as a “gotcha interested in the showroom “ effect, but this is well known and I am not the first to appreciate this frequency balance issue it tends to undernourish the midrange and make the bass appear to be less and boring in the long term
where acoustic listening helps me, is in listening to violin as a real test.
firstly there is a problem recording the violin around 3.5-4khz if memory serves where there are some “aggressive harmonics”
but I need to hear it’s not harsh in any way, and the resin, and wooden body of the instrument are present but don’t dominate stradivarius should clearly sound different more brilliant in harmonics than Guarneri which has a darker richer midrange and woodier hues compare Ray Chen to Augustine Hadelich ( note Hadelich earlier recordings are with Strads, see Paganini caprices)
It should not sound boxy or shrill or favour certain strings, pizzicato should have an attack with some wood decay
Last edited:
Bear in mind that given the difficulty of sourcing good LPs (to find quality NM at good prices), and to pursue it for sonic reasons, is audiophile compared to the instant and vast, free access to music on Qobuz. Anyone who cannot listen to Qobuz because it does not sound as real as LP is Jake
4-6K is in the peak of the Fletcher-Munson curve so this is not surprising. The ear isn't sensitive to a single frequency so much, but over a spectrum 1dB can be quite audible- and our ears are tuned to those particular frequencies for a reason.Have you tried measuring the in-room response that you find "bright & harsh"?
I was curious and actually did measure with the help of a friend. We inserted a little dsp between dac & server and listened to a contemporary Bach recording (Cafe Zimmermann). What I found particularly objectionable was a lift -- vs. the 100Hz ref -- in the 4-6kHz region, even 1 dB was annoying.
(The recording is fine, we used the dsp to experiment!)
Of course there is nothing scientific about this
Awsmone -
I couldn't be in more alignment with you on the points you made above. You have obviously invested quite a lot of time investigating the psychoacoustics of listening and what are the key mechanics behind creating audio components that take the nature of human hearing into account. I would like to delve into this more with you if you have the time or have already posted material on this subject.
I think it is very interesting that you chose the violin to illustrate your points. I agree that because the sound of a violin intersects the frequency bands to which our ears are most sensitive, the built in "buy me" bump found in many high-end audio products effectively destroys not only the sound of a violin, but the heart of the music. You have more articulately and more concisely expressed the basic premise of my essays than I have. Thank you!
Unfortunately, there are a number of high-end audio products out there that have received wide acclaim in the form of hi fi lingo from the audio press to describe the performance of these products. It is perfectly obvious to an educated listener of live acoustic music that the designer (or design team) either does not have a clue what an actual violin sounds like, to say nothing about recognizing the timbral differences between violins, or even more disheartening is the possibility that some purposely incorporate buy-me sound into their designs even though it is a type of sound that does not pass the test of time. The kind of detail espoused as ultimate by the press does not exist in live acoustic music. All most of us want in a hi fi system is to experience the same emotions we have when we listen to live acoustic music, and there should be an incremental upgrade path that never swerves away from delivering the foundation of the music while helping us be true to our chosen journey of seeking an ultimate connection with music through our home hi fi systems.
My question is whether it is possible to break this vicious hi fi feedback loop: Buy-me sound gets good reviews and results in the creation of more buy-me sound components which effectively alienates people who know what music actually sounds like. I guess this works out for everybody if enough people buy hi fi gear that exemplifies hi fi sound, rather than music, but it doesn‘t strike me as an overall good business plan given the fact that the majority of people are seeking their musical truth. I believe good forums such as WBF stand a chance of shifting the tone from hi fi talk to actual music listening talk, thereby holding the press and manufacturers more accountable to musical results rather than hi fi effects. Thank you all who have and will continue to contribute to the discussion.
Perfect summary Ron.
We will then also have the NATURAL SOUND of Harry Pearson - the best known to audiophiles.
As you say , in 2. "to them", "their" - Peter and David. It is their preference. But unfortunately "Natural Sound is a particular type of natural sound" shows how confusing things will become. I sometimes wrote NS(TM) in posts.
And you forgot 3b - the list of components that kill Natural Sound and the list of those who reduce or kill it, such as digital or streaming.
Nice to see you focus on what I find more important in sound reproduction - transmitting the emotion, but also the beauty of music. IMHO focusing on problematic gear and behaviors will not advance us. We have debated reviewers several times in WBF and it is clearly a one man's meat is another man's poison affair.
I like when people refer to particular recordings and write a few paragraphs on them and their interaction with the system playing them. It tells me about the system and the reviewer.
I don't think that there is such thing as too much information - the critical aspect is how the information is handled and presented to the listener. And IMHO sound reproduction does not aim to be a physical facsimile of the sound of an orchestra.
BTW, I am not sure that a system that carries the emotion of Shostakovitch will be the best to carry the emotion of the Genesis Foxtrot.
Many thanks Karen for your kind words
i think it’s tricky, as I do think it relates to whether acoustic instruments is your prime focus and the sound they make and want that sound in your audio, or you listen to music where amplified instruments are to the main in the recording
perhaps, we should start our own audio equipment review where the emphasis is on a more coherent reproduction ( trying to avoid natural here lol), combined with measurements
whether you like ASR or not, they also have been critical of speakers with uptilted frequency responses in speakers
i think the current trend of parsing the frequency response in audio reviews is also dangerous though I appreciate it has become an industry standard
LPs? Hard to find? Yesterday...
AudioAficionado.org - View Single Post - Mahler - what are your favorites?
The Forum for High End Audio
www.audioaficionado.org
Wow Fransisco, you and Ked have almost autistic memory of posts made on WBF !
Last edited:
Yes, very good. Too often that incremental upgrade path is assessed by the press and some manufacturers against a previous model rather than live acoustic music.
"Buy me sound" - <snip> I like that.
Lol.I thought that was what Ked is doing !
Also to be an above average driver one needs to have car first .
I thought that was what Ked is doing !
Yep. And I have arrested many for listening under influence and dangering society
I think it is a bit hard to find a good one because we are too meticulous. I have many Philips. Also tried Marhler 2 Haitink on Philips because I like how Haitink conduct. But I find Philip in general sounding very straight, no color, great in hall dimensionality and ambient. But they are on the dry side. Too dry actually. Not pleasant tone wise. The group of string instruments at dynamic crescendo could be fuzzy. Some may find highs analytical. Quite different from older Decca. I will try Haitink on Mahler3 that you mentioned and see how it is.
I bought it because it is Haitink. Much of his earlier recordings - those with Concertgebouw are Philip's and I assume he was under contract. Sound may be not on par with Decca. Other Orchestras later such as Bavarian Radio are on lesser LP labels though some later digital is Decca. I found his interpretation on Mahler 2 with the Dutch very interesting, not until the end did I understand it, but then very human and emotional. Let me know how you find the No.3.
Yes, very good. Too often that incremental upgrade path is assessed by the press and some manufacturers against a previous model rather than live acoustic music.
"Buy me sound" - <snip> I like that.
In his last newsletter Ricardo Franassovici of "Absolute Sounds UK" carefully states :
"When I left the rock music industry in the late 1970s, I had a dream of what good audio could produce. I believed that we could make sounds that reproduces the euphoria you get sitting in the studio or listening to the live event (...) That musical goal was never referenced against other audio devices, but was instead shaped by two important factors: How does sound of a component reference to the sensation of listening to the live event, and how does that product integrate with other components?" (end of quote)
Interesting that he refers that the system must reproduce emotions, not just real sounds.
In the the final pages of the newsletter Ricardo asked a few reviewers to differentiate between "A Flashy And Expensive Electronic Sounding System, And A System Consisting Of
Professionally Assembled & Well Matched, Heart Ripping Audio Instruments."
Read it at https://www.absolutesounds.com/brochures/downloads/latestNews/latestNews.pdf . It includes very interesting opinions of rewiers
IMO, emotions are extremely important. If a system can’t make my toes tap naturally it’s the wrong system for me personally. Of course proper set up, etc. - and not just the system - is important to toe tapping as well. The room’s ambience is as well. I desire great music, great sound, and a great room to listen to it in. This all triggers certain emotions IMO and makes the experience more worthwhile. IMO music is more than just what we hear, it can and should effect our entire being.
Similar threads
