Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?

[Atmasphere]

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.

Trespassors William Listen for the drum section when it comes in.

 

[Rich J]

...one wonders: What do blind audiophiles think of stereo imaging? I wonder too.

Having lost my vision over a 35 year period and having been a keen audio listener for all of that time, imaging and depth perception have always been a very important part of my listening experience.

Of course I still have visual memory, but I haven't been able to see my speakers from my listening position for many years, however I still perceive a wide soundstage beyond the width of my room, again depth imaging is very evident and I can place everything within the soundstage that the recording produces..

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...thank you for your reply @Rich J

One of the questions in my mind, as guys bat these terms around, is what role does vision have on the sonic experience we have?

If you attend live events, do you feel that experience presents imaging and soundstage that is very different from hifi at home for you?

This whole business of pin-point imaging, etc.

Not suggesting you speak for all vision-impaired or unsighted people, but in your experience.

Thank you. Your opinion and experience is a very interesting data set here. Cheers...

 

[Rich J]

...thank you for your reply @Rich J

One of the questions in my mind, as guys bat these terms around, is what role does vision have on the sonic experience we have?

If you attend live events, do you feel that experience presents imaging and soundstage that is very different from hifi at home for you?

This whole business of pin-point imaging, etc.

Not suggesting you speak for all vision-impaired or unsighted people, but in your experience.

Thank you. Your opinion and experience is a very interesting data set here. Cheers...

These are interesting questions and of course I can only relate my own experiences. I don't attend live classical events, whilst I have an appreciation of orchestral and more intimate classical music I don't listen to this genre on my system, my interests lay in classic rock, blues and some jazz, very middle of the road.

I do occasionally attend a few small intimate clubs and pubs that hold live blues and jazz events. In my case I can perceive the location of performers and instruments in relation to my seating position, I'm able to ascertain the height width and depth of a given soundstage, but with room acoustics and general environmental noise variances I would probably describe my experience as an impression of the location of the individual elements, whereas when listening to my system everything appears to be more in focus, I know a visual term, but that's the way I perceive it.

 

[tima]

No, the fill in happens automatically because of the encoded information on the recording. It is not a conscious effort to hear it.

That's a non-sequitar. So apriori you know what an oboe sounds like?

 

[hopkins]

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.

I already posted this "educational" video in reply to a similar comment of yours in another thread, but I guess you must have dismissed it:

I suspect that the reason you continue to dismiss the "physics" of sound reproduction is to perpetuate this idea that some types of systems somehow artificially accentuate "precision" as opposed to "musicality" and this fits in to your general view of the audio world where you oppose the true music "connaisseur" to the thrill-seeking ("misguided") audiophile.

 

[morricab]

That's a non-sequitar. So apriori you know what an oboe sounds like?

Apriori to being an audiophile? Yes,

 

[Rexp]

What is amusing and odd is that someone who hasn't experienced 3D sound, thinks because they haven't experienced it, it doesn't exist.

 

[Don_Camillo]

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.

I tend to agree but would like to reframe this a bit in order to reduce the number of misunderstandings we´ve seen in answers given to your post.

With multi-mic setups each microphone records only the instrument it is attached to and won´t pickup much room information. Spatiality as well as stage depth, height and width and/ or position of instruments and singer on the stage are artificially produced in the mastering process by variying phase and level and to the individual taste and imagination of the mastering engineer. So there is a lot of it, but it is not a true image of the recording situation and also not a realistic/real reproduction of the recording location.

Back in the days with microphones positioned in accordance to e.g. the decca tree for instance they recorded the instruments sound but additionally also picked up stage, stereo oriented information about the instrument or singers position on stage. With so-called spot microphones, room resonances and ambient sound were recorded in antiphase. All this formed a "clean and reality-near stereo image" of the recording situation and location.

This is why,in these older recordings you can hear the audience's clearing of their throats, the creaking of the stage boards, or, in the earlier Decca SXL recordings and when recorded e.g. at the Kingsway Hall, even the brake noise in the form of the rumbling of the tube beneath the concert hall.

As speakers interact with your listening room the finally presented 3D image is more likely an a single situation and artificially created product of the rooms reverbations, reflections, speaker placement and speaker design (drivers, enclosure, xover).

However, this information does not have the same value for everyone, since at home one is looking for a very individual illusion and this is driven by psychoacoustic effects and not by technical facts

 

[mtemur]

I tend to agree but would like to reframe this a bit in order to reduce the number of misunderstandings we´ve seen in answers given to your post.

With multi-mic setups each microphone records only the instrument it is attached to and won´t pickup much room information. Spatiality as well as stage depth, height and width and/ or position of instruments and singer on the stage are artificially produced in the mastering process by variying phase and level and to the individual taste and imagination of the mastering engineer. So there is a lot of it, but it is not a true image of the recording situation and also not a realistic/real reproduction of the recording location.

Back in the days with microphones positioned in accordance to e.g. the decca tree for instance they recorded the instruments sound but additionally also picked up stage, stereo oriented information about the instrument or singers position on stage. With so-called spot microphones, room resonances and ambient sound were recorded in antiphase. All this formed a "clean and reality-near stereo image" of the recording situation and location.

This is why,in these older recordings you can hear the audience's clearing of their throats, the creaking of the stage boards, or, in the earlier Decca SXL recordings and when recorded e.g. at the Kingsway Hall, even the brake noise in the form of the rumbling of the tube beneath the concert hall.

As speakers interact with your listening room the finally presented 3D image is more likely an a single situation and artificially created product of the rooms reverbations, reflections, speaker placement and speaker design (drivers, enclosure, xover).

However, this information does not have the same value for everyone, since at home one is looking for a very individual illusion and this is driven by psychoacoustic effects and not by technical facts

Very well laid out, thanks.

 

[Argonaut]

That's a non-sequitar. So apriori you know what an oboe sounds like?

a priori.

 

[bonzo75]

What a load of nonsense....

Only if you don't understand him due to lack of same experience. His post and Don's follow up capture most if it.

 

[Amir]

I tend to agree but would like to reframe this a bit in order to reduce the number of misunderstandings we´ve seen in answers given to your post.

With multi-mic setups each microphone records only the instrument it is attached to and won´t pickup much room information. Spatiality as well as stage depth, height and width and/ or position of instruments and singer on the stage are artificially produced in the mastering process by variying phase and level and to the individual taste and imagination of the mastering engineer. So there is a lot of it, but it is not a true image of the recording situation and also not a realistic/real reproduction of the recording location.

Back in the days with microphones positioned in accordance to e.g. the decca tree for instance they recorded the instruments sound but additionally also picked up stage, stereo oriented information about the instrument or singers position on stage. With so-called spot microphones, room resonances and ambient sound were recorded in antiphase. All this formed a "clean and reality-near stereo image" of the recording situation and location.

This is why,in these older recordings you can hear the audience's clearing of their throats, the creaking of the stage boards, or, in the earlier Decca SXL recordings and when recorded e.g. at the Kingsway Hall, even the brake noise in the form of the rumbling of the tube beneath the concert hall.

As speakers interact with your listening room the finally presented 3D image is more likely an a single situation and artificially created product of the rooms reverbations, reflections, speaker placement and speaker design (drivers, enclosure, xover).

However, this information does not have the same value for everyone, since at home one is looking for a very individual illusion and this is driven by psychoacoustic effects and not by technical facts

3D image is not about 3 dimension soundstage (w h d …) .

Yes I agree soundstage is product of mic technique, mastering process and room speaker interaction but 3D image is another subject.

Only high performance audio playback can give us 3D image. I do not know how can I explain it but 3D image gives me more real feeling of instrument in the room. 3D image does not depend on two speaker or room speaker interaction, you can turn off one speaker and listen to mono so 3D image is free from stereo or room speaker interaction.

 

[Don_Camillo]

3D image is not about 3 dimension soundstage (w h d …) .

Yes I agree soundstage is product of mic technique, mastering process and room speaker interaction but 3D image is another subject.

... 3D image gives me more real feeling of instrument in the room.

I think I understand what you mean. You seem to be pointing at effects like the body of an instrument, the air between instruments, and the timbre of a note, e.g. a guitar or violin, the chest of a voice or a piano, right?

Well, these are only descriptions of what happens there through a time-accurate reproduction, and thus is always because of frequency, phase and level as well as speaker interaction with your room. You simply can't circumvent physics.

 

[morricab]

I think I understand what you mean. You seem to be pointing at effects like the body of an instrument, the air between instruments, and the timbre of a note, e.g. a guitar or violin, the chest of a voice or a piano, right?

Well, these are only descriptions of what happens there through a time-accurate reproduction, and thus is always because of frequency, phase and level as well as speaker interaction with your room. You simply can't circumvent physics.

It is biology as much as physics. Those sound waves, phase shifted, frequency and level adjusted just so to produce an effect in the mind of the listener. The subtleties of the detected (by the listener) effects and when deficiencies are perceived in a system cannot be overstated. If a system is not producing the right phase,frequency and level from the recording to a sufficient standard, then the perceived performance will also likely suffer.and a recording that should have great 3D images in a 3D sound field will come off somewhat flatter than intended. This can be damaged by the room, placement, speaker design, electronics and power….oh and the recording itself.

 

[tima]

Apriori to being an audiophile? Yes,

Apriori means logically independent of experience. Knowledge gained through reason alone is apriori knowledge.
Aposteriori knowledge is gained through experience and observation.

Your claim that you have an image of an oboe when you hear a recording is predicated on your knowing from experience how an oboe sounds. The timbre and dynamic of the sound you hear is connected in your head with your prior experience or memory of what you associate to a particular timbre and dynamic. That you visualize that it is an oboe -- in your head -- is based on your immediate hearing and your associative memory to construct the image. Only the reproduced sound comes from the LP, not the oboe image. A three dimensional image is not on the LP.

 

[tima]

I mean that it is perceptual. We know that instruments propagate sound waves in multiple directions (although I never bought into the idea that a loudspeaker ought to mimic this for high fidelity playback of recordings). Thus, reflections in the concert hall create a halo around an instrument, adding to its dimensionality with its direct sound gradually blending with the reflected sound field and the sound from nearby instruments.

The 'standard' meaning of 'three dimensional' is having or appearing to have length, width and height or depth.

If you believe the three dimensional image you experience comes from direct and reflected sound, I believe you are describing location or locating based on tiny differences in sound arrival time -- the same sound clues your brain uses to hear, for example, the snap of a twig behind you. To me, locating a sound is not the same as having a three dimensional image. That you have a particular image is a product of the process I described to morricab in the above message.

 

[Don_Camillo]

It is biology as much as physics. Those sound waves, phase shifted, frequency and level adjusted just so to produce an effect in the mind of the listener.

It's especially important to use the correct terminology here; biology equips the human body with e.g two ears and a brain, so it's merely a tool here. Over the years, humans gain experience and learn to distinguish an elephant from a cow, as well as to hone their flight instincts. This then leads to the ability to roughly recognize the direction of a sound and to distinguish a lion from a cuddly cat. The brain then ultimately compiles all of these individual experiences into a specific perception which is not really different among audiophiles and non-audiophiles.

All of this taken together belongs to psychoacoustics, not biology.

 

[hopkins]

Apriori means logically independent of experience. Knowledge gained through reason alone is apriori knowledge.
Aposteriori knowledge is gained through experience and observation.

Your claim that you have an image of an oboe when you hear a recording is predicated on your knowing from experience how an oboe sounds. The timbre and dynamic of the sound you hear is connected in your head with your prior experience or memory of what you associate to a particular timbre and dynamic. That you visualize that it is an oboe -- in your head -- is based on your immediate hearing and your associative memory to construct the image. Only the reproduced sound comes from the LP, not the oboe image. A three dimensional image is not on the LP.

You are confusing things. Let's take a simpler example: a recorded voice. Let's assume you have never heard the singer in person. Let's assume further that you have never heard other recordings of that singer. If you listen to that same recording on two different systems and in one case you have a "diffuse" presentation, and in the other a very focused presentation where the singer "appears" to be in the room, detached from the speaker, how do you explain the difference? Do you really think that different people with different "experiences" would hear those two systems differently?

 

[treitz3]

The 'standard' meaning of 'three dimensional' is having or appearing to have length, width and height or depth.

If you believe the three dimensional image you experience comes from direct and reflected sound, I believe you are describing location or locating based on tiny differences in sound arrival time -- the same sound clues your brain uses to hear, for example, the snap of a twig behind you. To me, locating a sound is not the same as having a three dimensional image. That you have a particular image is a product of the process I described to morricab in the above message.

Musical wallpaper - soundscape in front of you as heard from the listening position, on a (whole room, wide beam) laser-like single plane, as if there were a musical wallpaper applied to that laser line somewhere near the boundaries of the speakers themself. This is 2-D.

Tom