Magico M7 2023

[Ron Resnick]

reproduced music can many times improve aspects of the experience

Does this imply adoption of the objective "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played"?

This objective might be able to be re-stated as "reproduce what the microphone heard."

There is confusion and talking past each other due simply to mutual failure to recognize different high-end audio objectives.

It makes sense that an objective of "reproduce what the microphone heard" will result in sound re-production by a stereo which will sound very different than the sound from a stereo which is attempting to "recreate the sound of an original musical event," or to "create a sound that seems live" -- each of which inherently means from the point of view of a listener in the audience, and not from point of view of the microphone.

Is it any surprise that an audiophile with the objective of reproducing what the microphone hears seeks pinpoint imaging, and an audiophile with the objective of reproducing an audience perspective* will not seek pinpoint imaging?

* I hear in the concert hall what Peter hears, which definitely is not pinpoint imaging.

 

[Al M.]

Is it any surprise that an audiophile with the objective of reproducing what the microphone hears seeks pinpoint imaging, and an audiophile with the objective of reproducing an audience perspective will not seek pinpoint imaging?

But that is the question. Is pinpoint imaging actually on the recording?

Let me repeat the obvious:

Since you need reproduction to listen to a recording, this poses an analytical dilemma when it comes to asserting that pinpoint imaging is encoded on the recording. It could be an artifact of reproduction instead.

Yet if it is the latter, why would I want such reproduction? It would not give me any "truth", and I am free to choose a mode of reproduction without pinpoint imaging -- without doing any injustice to the recording and its sonic truth.

 

[andromedaaudio]

Lets just start simple with Freq response requirements .
If you have a transducer with a graph that looks like the mountain tops / valleys of the dolomites your reproduction ain t correct no matter how you twist it .
There are some " golden ears" on this forum who want you to believe otherwise but its false.

Off course freq response doesnt say much regarding the whole sound picture , but its an essential way to correctly start

 

[AudioGod]

Does this imply adoption of the objective "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played"?

This objective might be able to be re-stated as "reproduce what the microphone heard."

There is confusion and talking past each other due simply to mutual failure to recognize different high-end audio objectives.

It makes sense that an objective of "reproduce what the microphone heard" will result in sound re-production by a stereo which will sound very different than the sound from a stereo which is attempting to "recreate the sound of an original musical event," or to "create a sound that seems live" -- each of which inherently means from the point of view of a listener in the audience, and not from point of view of the microphone.

Is it any surprise that an audiophile with the objective of reproducing what the microphone hears seeks pinpoint imaging, and an audiophile with the objective of reproducing an audience perspective* will not seek pinpoint imaging?

* I hear in the concert hall what Peter hears, which definitely is not pinpoint imaging.

It's not exactly what the microphone hears
Becaue obviously a recorded goes through multiple manipulations to the sound .
So the ultimate audiophile goal is to hear the recording exactly as the mastering engineer heard it in the studio, and possibly even better (Assuming you have better speakers / monitors than him and your room is better treated )
Wanting to hear recorded music (even if it was recorded live ) as an audience In a real life concert is the wrong approach (to me)
It's like wanting a 4K movie to look like film .

 

[AudioGod]

Lets just start simple with Freq response requirements .
If you have a transducer with a graph that looks like the mountain tops / valleys of the dolomites your reproduction ain t correct no matter how you twist it .
There are some " golden ears" on this forum who want you to believe otherwise but its false.

Off course freq response doesnt say much regarding the whole sound picture , but its an essential way to correctly start

You're reaching ASR territory

 

[andromedaaudio]

You're reaching ASR territory

No , just go and ask a real audio professional / recording engineer
Not audio forum experts " wise guys "

 

[tima]

Live music is my reference, and the reference for many here, but not all.

In my opinion, very precise, pinpoint imaging, usually with outlines, is an artifact, and to me it sounds artificial. Some gear and combinations of components and acoustic treatment set up in particular ways will create this effect. Sure, some people like that. It gives the illusion that someone is there in the room with you, but it sounds fake to me. When I close my eyes when listening to someone speak or when listening to live acoustic instruments, I do not hear this effect. Therefore, I do not want to recreate it in my listening room. My goal is a more natural presentation, reminding me of what I hear live.

I am talking about the origin of the sound, the location of the musician with his instrument as it is presented before me. My focus is the sound that the musician or singer makes with his or her instrument. The musician himself is not making a sound. We should not see/hear/imagine a pinpoint image of the musician or his instrument but rather the location from which the energy originates and then expands into the space. Is that precise? To me, it is about the spatial relationships between the instruments up on stage and how the energy moves outward and around and is reflected. I can tell that the violins are to the left of the piano and cello and that the timpani is further back in center and where the brass section and wind instruments are. The triangle may pierce through the mix and be on the left side, but where exactly is hard to tell, especially if you sit further back in the hall. Of course Ella is sitting there right next to Joe Pass in front of me in my room, but even then, it is not pinpoint and certainly not outlined. I hear her voice and his guitar. I hear the moment the sound is created and roughly where, but no pinpoint and no outline. The scale is believable and their relationship within the space is convincing. I can imagine them there singing and playing, but it is only the origin of the sound in space as captured by the recording and presented by the system in the room. Pinpoint imaging also implies to me at least a very small and precise point in space. Hearing a piano or cello or voice singing is nothing like that.

Yes, we all certainly have different approaches, observations, and goals.

I agree that the notion of 'pinpoint imaging' includes seeing in your mind's ear a crisp image outline. Or at least that is how I've used the term in reviews. The radical version includes such specificity that you can 'see' and count the heads of the choristers or the individual cellists. I believe this is possible with stereo reproduction but it does not reflect what happens in the concert hall experience as you describe with your trip to the Boston Symphony.

Pinpoint imaging - at least according to my theory - is a product of stereophony, our past experiences of music making, and our ability to locate sound in space. In our listening rooms we typically have two sound sources. The energized waves from each speaker impact our ear drums with the left ear slightly more impacted by the left speaker's sound and likewise for the right ear / right speaker. Small timing differences occur between left speaker / right ear from left speaker / left ear -- etc for the right side. Speaker directionality also plays a role. Point your right speaker at your right ear or shoulder versus pointing your right speaker straight ahead, etc. A simple way to encourage or discourage imaging or not.

The 'thought' or experience of pin point imaging is a product of our brain putting together the sound source inputs into a picture or experience with coherence. Thus the orchestra or quartet or performers are laid out before our mind's eye/ear. Our seemingly innate ability to geo-locate tells us where the different fundamentals and harmonics are coming from. A greater clarity of sound, speaker positioning, and our visual association of sound to people playing instruments contribute to the having of an image. Our past experience of a certain sound coming from a certain instrument aids in imaging.

It would be interesting to ask a blind person if they experience crisp image outlines from sound alone.

In the concert hall we use our two ears to hear but there is effectively a single source, not two sources. (Multiple musicians still count as a single source for both ears with the slight timing differences between left and right still in play.) Again, in my theory, there is not the level of refinement in our geo-location ability because of our seeing the musicians. In the absence of one sense, for example, visual, other senses step up their game. In the concert hall there is not the creation of an crisp image outline in our head because we actually see the performers.

Many will disagree with my somewhat broad-brush conclusion, viz. that imaging is not on a recording. It happens in our head listening to our stereos in combination with speaker positioning, our past sighted experience and our ability to geo-locate.

 

[ScottK]

I had a great afternoon getting lost in the music yesterday.

 

[JiminGa]

I think people are conflating a couple of things here. It’s true that most listening venues and live sound mixes are not very good hence Audio gods point. My point is that there are plenty of small venues with good sound to listen to unamplified live music. Many of us have also had the opportunity to listen live in the studio to the artists playing/singing into to mics and know exactly what it should sound like pre any recording artifacts. That’s how you know about pinpoint imaging without a theoretical diatribe about it. Once you’ve done this you understand things like tonality. It’s true that this is hard to due in the case of a full orchestra where you are a captive of the large hall your in but even there you can go to your friends house who plays cello and know with certainty what a cello sounds like. Get to know some real musicians and listen to them close up just like the comment about your mothers voice. You will then know it when you hear it. It saddens me to hear someone say that a recording of your mother could be better than live. That person doesn’t understand that conveying the actual spirit of the performer is the highest order of sound reproduction

 

[AudioGod]

I think people are conflating a couple of things here. It’s true that most listening venues and live sound mixes are not very good hence Audio gods point. My point is that there are plenty of small venues with good sound to listen to unamplified live music. Many of us have also had the opportunity to listen live in the studio to the artists playing/singing into to mics and know exactly what it should sound like pre any recording artifacts. That’s how you know about pinpoint imaging without a theoretical diatribe about it. Once you’ve done this you understand things like tonality. It’s true that this is hard to due in the case of a full orchestra where you are a captive of the large hall your in but even there you can go to your friends house who plays cello and know with certainty what a cello sounds like. Get to know some real musicians and listen to them close up just like the comment about your mothers voice. You will then know it when you hear it. It saddens me to hear someone say that a recording of your mother could be better than live. That person doesn’t understand that conveying the actual spirit of the performer is the highest order of sound reproduction

I like most of your comment
But still , recorded sound sounds better than the real thing 99% of the time.
Unless you have a perfect acoustic environment and other conditions which rarely happens
About being in the studio with the musicians , it's true to some degree
But also not 100% true
Why? Becaue the final recorded sound is never totally identical to that of the musicians playing in the studio , like I said they go through millions of manipulations.
So the closest you can get is to hear the recorded music as the mastering engineer heard the final master in the studio without any changes to the sound .

 

[ScottK]

I think most of us follow the notion of "satisficing". I know I do.

"Satisficing is a decision-making strategy or concept coined by the economist and Nobel laureate Herbert A. Simon in the 1950s. It involves making choices that are "good enough" or satisfactory, rather than trying to find the optimal or best possible outcome. When people satisfice, they set a threshold or criteria for an acceptable result, and as soon as they find an option that meets or exceeds that threshold, they stop searching for alternatives.

Satisficing is often contrasted with the concept of maximizing, where individuals aim to find the absolute best option, even if it requires more time, effort, and resources. Satisficing is a practical approach to decision-making, especially when there are time constraints or limited information, as it allows for quicker and more efficient choices that meet one's minimum requirements or goals."

 

[JiminGa]

AudioGod a couple of points. No one knows with certainty what the recording should sound like so we can’t use that as a standard. You would have to have the recording/mastering engineers tell you “ yes that’s exactly how we manipulated it” If on the other hand you know with certainty what a cello sounds like and it doesn’t sound right on the recording then you know it’s a problem either with the recording or the stereo rig. Listen to other recordings of cello and if the all sound wrong then it’s your rig. If it one or two then it’s the recording.

 

[bonzo75]

I think most of us follow the notion of "satisficing". I know I do.

"Satisficing is a decision-making strategy or concept coined by the economist and Nobel laureate Herbert A. Simon in the 1950s. It involves making choices that are "good enough" or satisfactory, rather than trying to find the optimal or best possible outcome. When people satisfice, they set a threshold or criteria for an acceptable result, and as soon as they find an option that meets or exceeds that threshold, they stop searching for alternatives.

Satisficing is often contrasted with the concept of maximizing, where individuals aim to find the absolute best option, even if it requires more time, effort, and resources. Satisficing is a practical approach to decision-making, especially when there are time constraints or limited information, as it allows for quicker and more efficient choices that meet one's minimum requirements or goals."

Don't disagree. But key here is "time constraints" AND "limited information". I always respect those who
say I had limited knowledge so bought X. Tango, when he joined, was quite clear – if he had the time to out on hifi trips, he would rather take his kid to Disneyland.

Some of the problems on forums occur when those with time constraints and limited information refuse to accept that it is limited, and defend their choice as the best choice against information they have not experienced. Some go to extreme dishonest lengths to defend their arguments. This has nothing to do with how satisficed they are, it is just alpha ego.

 

[ScottK]

Don't disagree. But key here is "time constraints" AND "limited information". I always respect those who
say I had limited knowledge so bought X. Tango, when he joined, was quite clear – if he had the time to out on hifi trips, he would rather take his kid to Disneyland.

Some of the problems on forums occur when those with time constraints and limited information refuse to accept that it is limited, and defend their choice as the best choice against information they have not experienced. Some go to extreme dishonest lengths to defend their arguments. This has nothing to do with how satisficed they are, it is just alpha ego.

Also key are financial resources and imperfect information. None of us has tried every option and all permutations (gear, room, source). As you say ego also plays a huge roll along with cognitive dissonance. Some members come closer to optimization like Mike than others (me). Those are the same folks who also recognize the limitations of achieving the "perfect" sound.

 

[Ron Resnick]

So the ultimate audiophile goal is to hear the recording exactly as the mastering engineer heard it in the studio, and possibly even better

I am assuming you are talking here about music recorded live at a real life concert. In my view this is merely your selected and preferred objective, one of several possibilities. It definitely is not my objective. I don't care what the mastering engineer heard in the studio.

If you are talking about music recorded live in a recording studio with all of the musicians in the studio playing together then my objective would be to hear from my stereo either what the recording engineer heard or what you would have heard if you were listening inside the recording studio room while the musicians were playing together (I'm not sure at the moment which one).

 

[Ron Resnick]

Wanting to hear recorded music (even if it was recorded live ) as an audience In a real life concert is the wrong approach (to me)

I appreciate that this is the wrong approach to you. But I think it is a completely valid objective to try to "recreate the sound of an original musical event" as a member of the audience.

 

[Ron Resnick]

But that is the question. Is pinpoint imaging actually on the recording?

Let me repeat the obvious:

Since you need reproduction to listen to a recording, this poses an analytical dilemma when it comes to asserting that pinpoint imaging is encoded on the recording. It could be an artifact of reproduction instead.

Yet if it is the latter, why would I want such reproduction? It would not give me any "truth", and I am free to choose a mode of reproduction without pinpoint imaging -- without doing any injustice to the recording and its sonic truth.

You are totally correct.

(Very gracious of you to put it this way, but I admit that this slipped my mind.)

 

[Ron Resnick]

I think most of us follow the notion of "satisficing". I know I do.

"Satisficing is a decision-making strategy or concept coined by the economist and Nobel laureate Herbert A. Simon in the 1950s. It involves making choices that are "good enough" or satisfactory, rather than trying to find the optimal or best possible outcome. When people satisfice, they set a threshold or criteria for an acceptable result, and as soon as they find an option that meets or exceeds that threshold, they stop searching for alternatives.

Satisficing is often contrasted with the concept of maximizing, where individuals aim to find the absolute best option, even if it requires more time, effort, and resources. Satisficing is a practical approach to decision-making, especially when there are time constraints or limited information, as it allows for quicker and more efficient choices that meet one's minimum requirements or goals."

It is nice to see some microeconomic theory here! I keep telling Tinka there's an intellectual element to this audio stuff.

 

[ScottK]

It is nice to see some microeconomic theory here! I keep telling Tinka there's an intellectual element to this audio stuff.

As a PhD economist I can't help myself!

 

[TLi]

From what I gathered from my local dealer, the response for M7 is overwhelming. Three firm orders with deposit were made in the first day and there are several serious enquiries from reputable old customers.

Magico will have problem keeping up with the production of M7. I was told the waiting time will be at least 6 months.