Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?

[morricab]

In my opinion, 3-D imaging is insufficient for producing presence. It is necessary, but insufficient. For a good sense of presence, I also want to hear a sense of energy expanding into the room, convincing dynamics, proper scale, and sufficient loudness. Tone and timbre must also be good.

For me, presence is a more holistic quality where many individual attributes are necessary and must come together. Basically, when the listener imagines he is in the presence of the musicians, a level of believability has been achieved and the system is capable of presenting a sense of realism.

Next time just throw in the kitchen sink to your explanation…

 

[microstrip]

(...) Disagree. Sound changes depending on distance and this is easily captured by a recording or added to it by the folks doing the recording.

Yes, know since long. It is why people and scholars say that the stereo 3D image is not real - it depends on added artificial tonal cues to create an illusion of distance, as you say bellow. Simple physics vectors.

Stereo imaging does have it's limitations but these are overstated by proponents of multichannel and the fact stereo recordings do in fact contain cues as to distances that are capable of producing a 3-D soundstage are often disregarded. Many times they are disregarded because the person has had no real experience of a system that is capable of presenting such a soundstage.

No, they are disregarded because they are not predictable and depend on too many specific circumstances. Real life, including the debates in this forum and the often elitist audiophile speech are proof of it.

The reason is the soundstage is a result of the complete system which includes and requires every aspect of the system to be optimized, including such things as cables and AC power quality that often are disregarded.

Yes, but if something depends on specific power cables or extraordinary conditions it can be considered intrinsic of a format. Just MHO

This is more an issue with ignorance of what stereo is capable of

Yes, I know others also said it and explained it much better than you and me.

combined with am ignorance of psychoacoustics

Here I deeply disagree with you - some of them know more about stereo psychoacoustics than you seem to imagine.

and a bias towards multichannel.

Surely - it creates a more real and predictable 3D, they are biased towards it. But perhaps not as enjoyable as stereo to us, stereo lovers.

 

[Al M.]

Dear @Rexp and @godofwealth,

IMHO, there is no real 3D imaging in most of the music we listen to—no stage depth either. Almost all modern music is recorded using multi-mic setups, with microphones placed very close to each instrument.

There are exceptions, such as classical recordings from the ’50s and early ’60s made with just two or three microphones positioned above the conductor’s head, or some very early mono recordings made with a single mic. Another rare exception is Ken Christianson’s “True Stereo” recordings for the Naim label. But for the vast majority of music, close-miking dominates.

In many cases, the 3D image or stage depth people talk about is actually a product of the listening room’s reverberations and reflections—and the placement of the speakers. These spatial cues aren’t captured by the microphones to begin with. Put on a pair of proper headphones and you’ll notice how that artificial 3D image vanishes. It’s just room echo.

Systems that rely on this kind of artificially produced imaging often struggle to reproduce electronic tracks or synth pop with strong bass and high BPM. Why? Because the artificial “3D image” continues to linger even after the actual signal has stopped and a new one has started. These setups simply can’t handle electronic, pop, or most rock music at high levels.

You don’t have to like that kind of music—but it’s great for testing. For example, play Billie Jean from Thriller. If you can clearly follow every note of the synth bass and all the details are crisp and distinct, then your system’s doing fine.

IMHO it’s better to focus on how realistic the instruments sound, how lifelike the sound in general, does it keep you continue listening or not when evaluating an audio setup instead of descriptions like 3D image.

While you have received a lot of pushback here, I will partially agree with you -- partially.

There was a time, after my electronics had gotten better, but my room had not yet, where every recording in my room had "depth". My audiophile friends loved the effect at the time, I hated it. It put me at exaggerated distance from the music and I knew it was not real.

The reason for the "depth" was, as you say, excessive room reverberation, reflections and 'echo'.

So you completely have a point here.

Once I fixed the problem, I achieved great spatial depth where the information actually appears to be recorded, and direct or more direct sounding recordings became just that. Now I am at a point where my system achieves great variation in spatial depth and hall/recording venue information -- as it should be.

***

Where I now diverge from your opinion as where everyone so far does.

There are lots of recordings with actual spatial depth and in many cases I think it is real. Yes, modern recordings are multi-miked, but in classical recordings there is also hall reverb overlay on the overall sound, and as a result spatial information is often correct. When, for example, in an orchestral recording a flute sounds midstage and brass sounds in the back of the stage, while other instruments like strings sound much more upfront, this corresponds with what I am hearing in the concert hall when sitting relatively close to the orchestra. And it is often recorded as such. Sure, you'll find the occasional orchestral multi-miked recording where the brass is at the front, which is typically wrong, but this is an exception more than it is the rule.

Do I suspect there are still some artifacts in my system/room where the listening room falsifies information and there are elements in the spatial presentation that are not actually on the recording? Sure. Yet by and large, I do think the spatial presentation is actually encoded in the recording.

 

[PeterA]

Next time just throw in the kitchen sink to your explanation…

My point is that 3-D and presence are not synonymous, IMO. An awful lot has to be right with one’s system for the listener to feel as though he is in the presence of the musicians.

One important factor is the ability to play at a volume that corresponds with the scale and size of the presentation as created by the mic placement and the information on the recording.

A sense of presence is an illusion that is easily broken when things are off.

 

[hopkins]

One important factor is the ability to play at a volume that corresponds with the scale and size of the presentation as created by the mic placement and the information on the recording.

I don't see how volume has anything to do with it, and why volume should "match" mic placement. The volume at which you play will simply define what dynamic range you will hear given your room's ambient noise.

 

[tima]

Lot's of, ahem, viewpoints, on imaging and presence.

I suspect the varying opinions come from the fact that the stereo image is not between your speakers, it is between your ears. We seem to have a built-in or evolved ability to geo-locate sound around us -- probably as a survival mechanism. But where we locate a sound is not the same as knowing what causes the sound. I speculate that to which we attribute a sound is based on our experience -- and there we are each unique although common experience can yield similar results.

If, for example, you know classical orchestral music and attend live performances, you have that experience to accompany listening to a stereo reproduction of an orchestra. Maybe seeing an orchestra play on TV or even appear on an album cover may lead to visualizing an orchestra when you play your stereo. But from the live experience or even the 2-D experience, as some maintain, there is no 3-D imaging in the concert hall, with your eyes closed. -- at least not for me.

If you claim to have 3-D imaging while listening to your stereo that would seem to be your own product and dependent on your experience. What specific image(s) do you have? If the image is actually (objectively) on the recording presumably you'd see the image of Jascha Heifetz in your mind's eye/ear and not see Fritz Kreisler when hearing a Heifetz violin concerto when you've never seen either of them? If he turns while playing, do you see the back of his 3-D head? Do you have the 3-D image of a kettle drum if you've never seen one?

Depth and presence are different from 3-D imaging. Depth, so I speculate, comes more from geo-location. In a recent review I describe choristers standing on risers, rows that are behind and higher than those in front. Back and sidewall reflections in the concert hall are on the record in terms of time arrival. I have a sense of energy moving off of its sources/performers into the space around them, rising above them. Coupled with depth, this to me is presence, energy in a space -- what I call the sense of an orchestra in a hall.