Magico M7 2023

[Al M.]

Live music is a bad example
Many times live music sounds worst than recorded music .
Besides , you don't listen to live music at home , you're listening to *recorded * music
And it usually has pinpoint imaging .
If your speakers /system don't reflect exactly what's on the recording , then what's the point ?
If the recording has diffuse imaging , then yes it should sound diffused .

How can you be sure the pinpoint imaging artifact is on the recording?

Why is it not possible that it is an artifact of the reproduction?

And how would you analytically distinguish between the two, given that you need reproduction to hear the recording?

Whatever may be the case, I greatly prefer my playback without hearing the pinpoint artifact.

Other than this, I fully agree with Peter's post above.

 

[Al M.]

A speaker without precise pinpoint imaging cannot be defined as hi end at all

Given the above problem of distinguishing where the pinpoint artifact comes from, the recording or the reproduction, this statement seems more daring than reasonable.

 

[PeterA]

Given the above problem of distinguishing where the pinpoint artifact comes from, the recording or the reproduction, this statement seems more daring than reasonable.

I think the effect is also somewhat dependent on speaker toe-in and overall set up. The relationship between direct and reflected sound too. Room acoustics affect this also, as do wires and perhaps electronics. I think the cause is complex, but I have not thought much about that. It is certainly an attribute some really like.

 

[NekoAudio]

A good test of accurate and precise location definition is video games. The game knows exactly where, relative to your view on the display, a sound source is located, and will output the sound from stereo speakers or headphones with the correct timing and volume. If you can correctly locate the sound source (which you'd have to do instantly and instinctively) then things are good.

When the sound reproduction is of lower quality, be it due to the speakers/headphones or electronics or the room, locating the sound will be more difficult or less precise. The difference between good quality and poor quality reproduction in this context is pretty well known and documented (although perhaps not through a rigorous scientific study).

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Given the above problem of distinguishing where the pinpoint artifact comes from, the recording or the reproduction, this statement seems more daring than reasonable.

really solving the problem is a very simple idea, although the process to achieve it is anything but (reasonable).

garbage in<->garbage out. and every recording should be different. if you repeatedly hear characteristics of the gear, or speakers, or room, or even power grid, then you have more work to do. if you want to make sure it's the recording and not the reproduction process. your sources have to be able to be transparent. a preference for colorations will also be in the way.

and you need to listen to a sufficient number of recordings. all types. recordings that test the headroom of all the pieces making up the system.

the trick is getting all that done, and having the system still capture your soul and carry you away.

 

[tony22]

I like what you said, Mike. I have many friends across three different audio clubs who exhibit the example of using the music to listen to their systems.

 

[Kingsrule]

I don't want anything the way u guys are talking about imaging.
I want what the recording engineer laid down on the recording...if pinpoint, that's what i want . If not, that's what I want.

I want it presented as real to the recording as recorded. This whole "presented naturally" is total bs

 

[Al M.]

I don't want anything the way u guys are talking about imaging.
I want what the recording engineer laid down on the recording...if pinpoint, that's what i want . If not, that's what I want.

I want it presented as real to the recording as recorded. This whole "presented naturally" is total bs

You don't answer the conundrum that I described. How do you know if it's an attribute of the recording or of the reproduction, or both? You can't make the distinction, because in order to listen to the recording you need reproduction.

But if it's an artifact of reproduction and I have an alternative, I don't want to hear it! You call "presented naturally" total bs. What if I call pointpoint imaging total bs? Given the above, you can't refute my assertion.

 

[Al M.]

really solving the problem is a very simple idea, although the process to achieve it is anything but (reasonable).

garbage in<->garbage out. and every recording should be different. if you repeatedly hear characteristics of the gear, or speakers, or room, or even power grid, then you have more work to do. if you want to make sure it's the recording and not the reproduction process. your sources have to be able to be transparent. a preference for colorations will also be in the way.

and you need to listen to a sufficient number of recordings. all types. recordings that test the headroom of all the pieces making up the system.

the trick is getting all that done, and having the system still capture your soul and carry you away.

See my answer to Kingsrule.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

You don't answer the conundrum that I described. How do you know if it's an attribute of the recording or of the reproduction, or both? You can't make the distinction, because in order to listen to the recording you need reproduction.

But if it's an artifact of reproduction and I have an alternative, I don't want to hear it! You call "presented naturally" total bs. What if I call pointpoint imaging total bs? Given the above, you can't refute my assertion.

See my answer to Kingsrule.

over listening to thousands of recordings, the truth immerges. realism is something that we all can hear. in my case i have multiple formats to help to establish my own truth. comparing different sources and even comparing gear it's many times easy to hear what is artifact, and what is a realism attribute. even amplifier compares uncovers not which is perfect, but which get's the least in the way of the musical truth while immersing us in the experience.

it's not one thing, but the accumulation of experiences. no black and white and plenty of personal taste involved.

not a place....a process. and one that is ongoing. ears have to be open to new opportunities and insights.

 

[PeterA]

I don't want anything the way u guys are talking about imaging.
I want what the recording engineer laid down on the recording...if pinpoint, that's what i want . If not, that's what I want.

I want it presented as real to the recording as recorded. This whole "presented naturally" is total bs

Well that’s what Alon Wolf stated as his goal in the M7 video, so you have the right brand of speakers.

I may not know what you mean by pinpoint imaging. Could you describe what you hear when you hear pinpoint imaging through your system from a recording that the engineer made to sound that way?

 

[PeterA]

Boston symphony hall last week just prior to the beginning of the program. When the musicians started to play, I could see pinpoint imaging. But when I closed my eyes, I did not hear it. The right most cello is 3 feet in front of the bass player. That is pinpoint imaging. There is no way I could discern that distance with my eyes closed. But I could hear a wave of low frequency energy coming from the left middle front of the stage and the two instrument sections playing very distinctly. The timbres were unique and the spatial relationship was clear but there was nothing pinpoint about it.

During Tchaikovsky’s piano Concerto, I could clearly see the pianist’s two arms rising above the keyboard, with fingers hidden. I could clearly hear 10 fingers on two hands playing different keys. Although I am certain the two hands attached to 10 fingers we’re only playing inches apart, I could not tell that by simply listening to the sound. What I heard was the energy leaving the soundboard to fill that great hall with beautiful music and the piano in the middle of the string sections and in front of the brass with the tympani even further back. There was an occasional triangle strike. Its energy pierced through the fabric, clear and high from somewhere behind the violins and to the left of the piano.

The sound from that orchestra simply did not have any pinpoint imaging.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

View attachment 119485

Boston symphony hall last week just prior to the beginning of the program. When the musicians started to play, I could see pinpoint imaging. But when I closed my eyes, I did not hear it. The right most cello is 3 feet in front of the bass player. That is pinpoint imaging. There is no way I could discern that distance with my eyes closed. But I could hear a wave of low frequency energy coming from the left middle front of the stage and the two instrument sections playing very distinctly. The timbres were unique and the spatial relationship was clear but there was nothing pinpoint about it.

During Tchaikovsky’s piano Concerto, I could clearly see the pianist’s two arms rising above the keyboard, with fingers hidden. I could clearly hear 10 fingers on two hands playing different keys. Although I am certain the two hands attached to 10 fingers we’re only playing inches apart, I could not tell that by simply listening to the sound. What I heard was the energy leaving the soundboard to fill that great hall with beautiful music and the piano in the middle of the string sections and in front of the brass with the tympani even further back. There was an occasional triangle strike. Its energy pierced through the fabric, clear and high from somewhere behind the violins and to the left of the piano.

There just was nothing pinpoint or precise about any of it.

reproduced music can many times improve aspects of the experience. and can't quite manage other parts of it.

not claiming that reproduced is as good overall as live. or anything like that.

a couple years ago my center seat row M at the Seattle Symphony was not as convincing as my home reproduction experience of that same concert 10 days later. anecdotal only.

we are both right.

and then there is the lifestyle choices of staying at home verses the hassle of the live experience. to each their own. YMMV.

 

[AudioGod]

too bad. but reproduced music can many times improve aspects of the experience. and can't quite manage other parts of it.

not claiming that reproduced is as good overall as live. or anything like that.

a couple years ago my center seat row M at the Seattle Symphony was not as convincing as my home reproduction experience of that same concert 10 days later. anecdotal only.

we are both right.

and then there is the lifestyle choices of staying at home verses the hassle of the live experience. to each their own. YMMV.

Recorded music sounds better then live music 99% of the time.

 

[PeterA]

Recorded music sounds better then live music 99% of the time.

Do you think a recording of your mother’s voice sounds better than her real voice?

 

[Al M.]

Recorded music sounds better then live music 99% of the time.

Are you talking about pop/rock or about classical live concerts?

 

[AudioGod]

Are you talking about pop/rock or about classical live concerts?

Any type of music , not to mention electronic music which sounds pretty much better than real life.

 

[AudioGod]

Do you think a recording of your mother’s voice sounds better than her real voice?

If she's 3 feet away from me in a studio then her real voice would probably sound better.
But in real life scenarios 99% of the time it's not like that, so yeah recorded voice should be cleaer

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Do you think a recording of your mother’s voice sounds better than her real voice?

no. not when all things are equal for both experiences. and not when i'm in a physical position for the real voice to be optimal.

but if i was in a huge hall with 3500 of my closest friends and my mother was on stage, i might prefer her recording to what i could hear from my seat mid hall.......sometimes. seeing her would alter my emotions for sure. if i went 20 times to the hall to hear her, and listened in my room to her recording 20 times who knows how that might work? would i have the energy and motivation to do go to all that effort to take the time to go to the hall? i do know my recording would be there for me 100% of it's optimal potential every time. and it might also offer me better sound in some ways. hard to know exactly. maybe she only performed on the East Coast and i lived on the West Coast. and i hated airplanes? maybe i'm afraid of the neighborhood where the hall is located?

playing the long game, maybe i decided i would be happier with a great recorded experience than committing to the efforts of doing lots of live music. maybe my wife was not interested in going out so it would have to be me by myself. and i'm not interested in that. maybe it's just i'm a home body.

i'm not making a case against the ideal live experience. but over time where would i/me/myself get the most satisfaction. lots of moving parts to preferences. and no moral high ground to stand on.

 

[tima]

over listening to thousands of recordings, the truth immerges. realism is something that we all can hear. in my case i have multiple formats to help to establish my own truth. comparing different sources and even comparing gear it's many times easy to hear what is artifact, and what is a realism attribute. even amplifier compares uncovers not which is perfect, but which get's the least in the way of the musical truth while immersing us in the experience.

it's not one thing, but the accumulation of experiences. no black and white and plenty of personal taste involved.

not a place....a process. and one that is ongoing. ears have to be open to new opportunities and insights.

Here is the antithesis of natural sound.