Have We Become Conditioned Permanently to Hi-Fi Sound?

[Robh3606]

I wonder what would happen if some took a CD of ordinary sounds which we almost never hear on our systems...standing next to a car engine when someoen starts the ignition (room filling bass, etc), or a truck trying to back up (rumble plus high pitched ring)...would that help us compare real to audio better? No idea. Just a thought.

Hello Lloydelee

I have a song on a Concrette Blond CD called City Screaming. It starts with city sounds and one is a car pulling up. I was listening in the summer with my widows open and it fooled me I thought I had someone in front of the house.

I am surprised knowone is looking at the recording themselves. Amir was saying how different a banjo sounded live but on most recordings how close are the microphones placed. They sure as hell are not in the audience. If it's not recorded from the same vantage point as you would would hear it live why would you expect it to sound like a live performance?

How do you know if it's the systems or the fact that these systems are just giving back what's being put into them?? Don't these recordings tend to go for rather extreme detail which normally you wouldn't hear??

Rob

 

[daytona600]

the old days


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSINO6MKtco

 

[Soundminded]

The technology isn't there. The underlying science isn't there. Toole says it can't be done. With what's known today and the way the industry goes about it, IMO he's right. It wil take real scientific research, real breakthroughs, real knowledge before it's possible. Not what passes for it in the ad copy for what's currently on the market.

 

[LL21]

Hello Lloydelee

I have a song on a Concrette Blond CD called City Screaming. It starts with city sounds and one is a car pulling up. I was listening in the summer with my widows open and it fooled me I thought I had someone in front of the house.

I am surprised knowone is looking at the recording themselves. Amir was saying how different a banjo sounded live but on most recordings how close are the microphones placed. They sure as hell are not in the audience. If it's not recorded from the same vantage point as you would would hear it live why would you expect it to sound like a live performance?

How do you know if it's the systems or the fact that these systems are just giving back what's being put into them?? Don't these recordings tend to go for rather extreme detail which normally you wouldn't hear??

Rob

Agree...every link in the chain matters...and it starts with the material. i have lately been buying cheap remasters of Jazz/blues albums and also some [expensive] newer remasters because they make a big difference in some cases.

As for my system...i tend to 'calibrate' using an album i think was recorded and mastered with care. MA Recordings comes to mind.

 

[Bill Hart]

Did anyone ever do this excerise in art class in school? Take a complicated drawing of a person's face...try to copy it. Most of us start with round circle for a face...2 round circles for eyes...and end up with a cartoon. Our brains are wired to know eyes are round, so is a face...so when we see even a bad drawing, we automatically say 'person's face'...we cannot help it.
HOWEVER, turn the complicated drawing of that person's face UPSIDE DOWN...and try to copy it. It is fascinating how good your copy becomes!!! You stop drawing a circle for a face, etc...which you are 'conditioned' to do...because you are no longer looking at a complicated drawing of face..but the brain sees a series of complex shadows, etc...you end up drawing quite a good copy (most of us anyway)...and when you turn your drawing rightside up...most people are shocked at how good it is. We had 16 in a classroom...and it was remarkable how good these drawings were...by kids who definitely did not 'know how to draw'.

I wonder if audio is similar...we hear a sax...whether off mp3, table radio or super-system...and we are conditioned to know 'its a sax'...even if it is too high pitched, thin, thick, tinny, flat, nasal...we cannot help it. We KNOW it is a sax. But if we could somehow do the same as the art exercise above (no idea how!)...i wonder what we would all think of our audio systems.

I wonder what would happen if some took a CD of ordinary sounds which we almost never hear on our systems...standing next to a car engine when someoen starts the ignition (room filling bass, etc), or a truck trying to back up (rumble plus high pitched ring)...would that help us compare real to audio better? No idea. Just a thought.

Lloyd- part of what you are describing is the 'gestalt' and how caricaturists work- if you capture some prominent or distinctive features the brain fills in the rest. And, I suppose, the premise of various compression technologies for audio and video. And errors of omission are sometimes less egregious than errors of commission.

 

[LL21]

Lloyd- part of what you are describing is the 'gestalt' and how caricaturists work- if you capture some prominent or distinctive features the brain fills in the rest. And, I suppose, the premise of various compression technologies for audio and video. And errors of omission are sometimes less egregious than errors of commission.

Yes, exactly...and when our brain automatically fills it in...then it can become difficult to shut off the 'auto fill-in'...and thus it becomes more difficult to judge if the sound is like a real cymbal or a real drum (for some of us).

 

[rlawry]

I think these points are all valid and appreciate everyone's response. But what I would like to reiterate is that although recordings and equipment technology ultimately limits how closely playback of recordings resembles the real thing, I think the audiophile industry is aiming for the wrong end of the spectrum. In this I mean that they are catering to our desire for exciting but inaccurate sound rather than realistic sound, and this can be proven by what can be heard at shows, dealers, and others' sound systems. The gold standard has veered away from what is truth toward that which initially sounds impressive but ultimately is unsatisfying, particularly when trying to reconcile with natural sound. Is it because we hear so little natural sound in favor of that which is artifically enhanced through amplification, audiophile systems, etc? Hence my premise that we have become conditioned to such a sound and therby demand it.

 

[LL21]

I think these points are all valid and appreciate everyone's response. But what I would like to reiterate is that although recordings and equipment technology ultimately limits how closely playback of recordings resembles the real thing, I think the audiophile industry is aiming for the wrong end of the spectrum. In this I mean that they are catering to our desire for exciting but inaccurate sound rather than realistic sound, and this can be proven by what can be heard at shows, dealers, and others' sound systems. The gold standard has veered away from what is truth toward that which initially sounds impressive but ultimately is unsatisfying, particularly when trying to reconcile with natural sound. Is it because we hear so little natural sound in favor of that which is artifically enhanced through amplification, audiophile systems, etc? Hence my premise that we have become conditioned to such a sound and therby demand it.

Personally, i have found that shows (like television show rooms) seem set up for 'high impact'...not subtle cues. Its like they turn the 'brightness up' on a television screen to grab your attention...but the good thing is that same system dialed-in properly at home can be quite good.

I believe that the efforts to push the boundaries of noise floor, detail, decay, transient speed, dynamic range (all measureable...and more easily marketable because they can be measured and look good on the brochure)...have been GOOD for the industry...but without balancing these technical merits with less measurable elements (tonality, 'sweetness' of midrange, 'density of the note' when a key is struck on a Steinway, ability to handle and sort out complex passages...) you can end up listening to a somewhat 'mechanical' system. However, take those technical capabilities (which far surpass many of their older counterparts from 10-20 years ago)...and combine them with the 'softer elements' mentioned above...and THAT is MAGIC.

I do think the industry has found with the greater budgets consumers allow them...they have started playing with very expensive technologies and parts in an effort to create a scientifically all-out component...i think the most recent generation of equipment has been far more successful in incorporating those technologies into their designs while balancing those subtler elements (tonality, etc).

I take for example the ACT 2...far quieter, more detail, more decay than prior CJ models...but big fans of older CJ equipment found it 'strict'...and while i love the ACT2...i did agree to a certain level. But the new GAT has maintained truly the best of CJ's tonality, purity, naturalness...with the technological strengths (noise floor, extension, detail, dynamic range) of the ACT 2 that they say was one of the first to use these newer technologies.

 

[Bill Hart]

I think these points are all valid and appreciate everyone's response. But what I would like to reiterate is that although recordings and equipment technology ultimately limits how closely playback of recordings resembles the real thing, I think the audiophile industry is aiming for the wrong end of the spectrum. In this I mean that they are catering to our desire for exciting but inaccurate sound rather than realistic sound, and this can be proven by what can be heard at shows, dealers, and others' sound systems. The gold standard has veered away from what is truth toward that which initially sounds impressive but ultimately is unsatisfying, particularly when trying to reconcile with natural sound. Is it because we hear so little natural sound in favor of that which is artifically enhanced through amplification, audiophile systems, etc? Hence my premise that we have become conditioned to such a sound and therby demand it.

R- I'm not trying to be contrary here, but you are implying there was a time when equipment was more truthful to the music and didn't aim for the added 'pizzazz.' I'm as much a lover of retro stuff as almost any guy, but there are trade-offs there too (as I sit writing listing to vinyl, SET amps and a pair of horns).
I think there is stuff all over the lot. Granted, alot of the uber equipment seems designed to impress, but frankly, I can't say I've heard enough of it to make an across the board judgment. My old Quads have a certain versimultude but the limitations are extreme. I think everybody finds their own place, within their budget, taste and priorities. The guy buying that 200k dollar mono block (or whatever) certainly ain't bitchin' and may care less. So, I'm not going to tilt at that windmill. To the extent these products are supposed to define the path forward for equipment most mortals can afford, I suppose you could take issue, but I haven't listened to enough of those systems in controlled circumstances to make a judgment.

 

[astrotoy]

For my enjoyment and to keep real, I currently attend about 50 live music (classical and opera unamplified) concerts a year. They are in a variety of venues, with top class musicians. It isn't cheap - say $30 to $150 per ticket (times 2). But I get a constant reference to the real thing and I think it really helps me appreciate the good and not so good stuff that comes out of my system. It's about the same price as a pair of top end power cords.

Larry

 

[treitz3]

.....But I get a constant reference to the real thing.....

Hello, Larry. IMO/IME, this is what many folks seemingly fail to compare their rig and components within said rig too. Instead of comparing it all to other gear, they should instead be comparing it to the real thing. I tip my hat to you, sir.

Tom

 

[Mosin]

---Me, music frees me! :b ...I know what I like, and I like what sounds good (I know that too).

I have to agree with Bob on this one. Whenever I go to an audio show, I hate the sound of 90% of the rooms, but when I find one where I can close my eyes and escape to another place I know I have found my element. If anything, I rebel against that canned boutique audiophile sound that is crammed down our throats by so many who are driven by God knows what. I could name names, but I won't.

My entire quest is to unlock the emotion of a musical performance. The rest, in my view, should take care of itself, and the over-the-top efforts of some manufacturers and salespeople who attempt dazzle us with bling and marketing bs have become a bit tiring to me. I suppose there are quite a few of us who have become jaded when it comes to the status quo. They're selling, but we ain't buying. Audio should be a passion, not an ego trip or some way to get fast money from naive hobbyists.

 

[rbbert]

I rarely hear sound reproduction systems other than my own. PA systems at live concerts, yes, and also acoustic instruments played by (unfortunately) rather pedestrian musicians for the most part. it's getting harder and harder to hear unamplified concerts by world class musicians of any genre.

 

[treitz3]

That's still the real thing.

Tom

 

[opus111]

My entire quest is to unlock the emotion of a musical performance. The rest, in my view, should take care of itself, and the over-the-top efforts of some manufacturers and salespeople who attempt dazzle us with bling and marketing bs have become a bit tiring to me. I suppose there are quite a few of us who have become jaded when it comes to the status quo. They're selling, but we ain't buying. Audio should be a passion, not an ego trip or some way to get fast money from naive hobbyists.

I agree here - for me, my system is optimized as far as I'm able to deliver emotion, satisfaction, delight and surprise.

But for the salespeople it does rather seem to me there's a kind of Catch-22 here. The best systems in my estimation are the most transparent, they're an open window through which the recorded artists communicate to the listener. But a salesman wants to draw the potential purchaser's attention to the equipment, not to the performers. After all he's not selling recordings. if the equipment is transparent, what is there to say? The whole consumerist paradigm is that you buy features - but perfect transparency has none. That's how I think the 'hi-fi sound' has arisen - in order to give something for the salesmen to point to that the system (as opposed to the music) is offering.

 

[Bill Hart]

I agree here - for me, my system is optimized as far as I'm able to deliver emotion, satisfaction, delight and surprise.

But for the salespeople it does rather seem to me there's a kind of Catch-22 here. The best systems in my estimation are the most transparent, they're an open window through which the recorded artists communicate to the listener. But a salesman wants to draw the potential purchaser's attention to the equipment, not to the performers. After all he's not selling recordings. if the equipment is transparent, what is there to say? The whole consumerist paradigm is that you buy features - but perfect transparency has none. That's how I think the 'hi-fi sound' has arisen - in order to give something for the salesmen to point to that the system (as opposed to the music) is offering.

Subtlety is harder to sell, particularly if it is not in a context where somebody can live with it at home for enough time to 'get it.' And, frankly, I'm not sure that's what everybody wants- my 'nuanced' may be flat to you, or what makes me run from the room with my ears bleeding may be 'detail' to another. Obviously, I'm exaggerating, but we come back to people's taste and pocketbook, given that even the most over the top gear may pale in comparison to real, live music.

 

[treitz3]

Hence, the conundrum of audio.

Tom

 

[opus111]

Agreed - what I call the 'splashy' sound must be what 90% of punters want - or it wouldn't be in such preponderance at shows.

Your comments about 'paling compared to real, live music' seem to me to miss the point though. To me a recording is a work of art - I can't recall visitors to the Louvre in Paris saying 'You know, the beauty of the Mona Lisa really is not done justice to by Leonardo's flat, 2-dimensional representation of her'. Though they might have been saying this in French and I wouldn't have caught it.

 

[Raffles]

The best systems in my estimation are the most transparent, they're an open window through which the recorded artists communicate to the listener. But a salesman wants to draw the potential purchaser's attention to the equipment, not to the performers. After all he's not selling recordings. if the equipment is transparent, what is there to say?

To me, that's how (DSP) active speakers sound. I heard a pair of $50,000 actives and in them I heard the same sound as I hear in my own, just bigger.

 

[opus111]

Its how my home-brewed actives sound, but I've not yet heard that kind of sound out of any commercial actives. It was a long time ago but Meridian's (DSP) and ATC's (analog) both sounded harsh at the top, fatiguing.