Modern speakers vs Vintage speakers

[microstrip]

(...) Great systems demonstrate just how bad some recordings are because they are more revealing of recording quality. Perhaps it is important to identify first what the great recordings are. (...)

Yes, Peter, the recordings we use to judge our systems are a key point for establishing preference.

My list of great recordings is surely very different from yours - in fact most of them are not accessible in vinyl. And as referred by DaveC I praise reproducing as much information on the recording as possible. A properly balanced system will reproduce it without the usually referred negative excesses - and we should remember that it is system property, not just an isolated characteristic of some pieces of equipment.

 

[DaveC]

That’s not my goal. In fact, the pursuit of ever more “detail” is part of what’s wrong with so much high-end gear these days. It’s easy to make an amplifier or speaker seem more detailed, more spectacular, with hyper-specific imaging, by just adding a few film bypass capacitors and using certain resistors that highlight high frequencies. The equipment may still measure the same but it will sound like it has a rising HF response, highlighting details and spatial information, and often with a lean midbass lacking warmth and richness. ARC once described an upgrade as similar to turning on spotlights in the back of the hall. Unfortunately the net result is usually a less natural tonal balance.

So is hearing more “information” always a good thing? I would say No.

Certainly I like gear that has high resolution. I like hearing subtle nuances in instrument color and interactions between performers. But I don’t want a spotlight that artificially hypes HF details and causes a lean midbass.

High Fidelity does not mean colorations and artifacts that fool you into thinking there is more detail than there is. That's worse than a warm system that smooths over details because listening fatigue is something to be avoided at all costs, IMO. High Fidelity does include proper tonal balance and frequency response.

I am NOT referring to using "High Fidelity" in a derogatory sense that has become more popular lately. I think that's a misuse of language that is only confusing. Sort of how the definition of "literally" is being changed to mean "figuratively". It's common but imo, unfortunate.

 

[Al M.]

That’s not my goal. In fact, the pursuit of ever more “detail” is part of what’s wrong with so much high-end gear these days. It’s easy to make an amplifier or speaker seem more detailed, more spectacular, with hyper-specific imaging, by just adding a few film bypass capacitors and using certain resistors that highlight high frequencies. The equipment may still measure the same but it will sound like it has a rising HF response, highlighting details and spatial information, and often with a lean midbass lacking warmth and richness. ARC once described an upgrade as similar to turning on spotlights in the back of the hall. Unfortunately the net result is usually a less natural tonal balance.

So is hearing more “information” always a good thing? I would say No.

Certainly I like gear that has high resolution. I like hearing subtle nuances in instrument color and interactions between performers. But I don’t want a spotlight that artificially hypes HF details and causes a lean midbass.

I don't think there's a contradiction here. Dave is talking about information, not artificial "detail". There's real detail, that's different. When a system is able to extract lots of timbral micro-detail from a string quartet that at the same time sounds warm and full-bodied, without HF accentuation, now *that's* detail.

Edit: my reply crossed with Dave's.

 

[Salectric]

If a change in one's system results in improved detail without impairing any of its other qualities, I certainly agree that more detail is a good thing. What I take exception to is the statement by @DaveC that "High fidelity is the pursuit of a playback system that is capable of reproducing as much information on the recording as possible" which places a priority on detail retrieval. In my view, there are other qualities that are equally important such as a smooth natural tonal balance, coherency, wide dynamics (micro- and macro-) and soundstaging, all in addition to reproducing as much information as possible. It's the balance that's key, and each of us may have a different priority of the qualities that we deem important.

Let me give an example. For the past two weeks, I have been evaluating some different internal hookup wiring in my Intact Audio Autoformer Volume Control. The main contenders so far are Audio Note Silver Litz and a generic copper Litz. With the Silver Litz I can hear slightly more subtle details, in live recordings especially, but this comes at a cost of some tonal balance irregularities---a slight added brightness and a more than slight leanness in the lower midrange. The copper Litz sounds almost but not quite as detailed as the Audio Note; however, the copper has to my ears a smoother, more neutral tonal balance. I haven't made any decisions yet since I still have some more wires to try, but if I had to choose right now between the two described here I would go with the copper Litz despite its having a tad less resolution. It's a question of priorities and balance.

 

[Al M.]

If a change in one's system results in improved detail without impairing any of its other qualities, I certainly agree that more detail is a good thing. What I take exception to is the statement by @DaveC that "High fidelity is the pursuit of a playback system that is capable of reproducing as much information on the recording as possible" which places a priority on detail retrieval.

No it doesn't. You continue to misinterpret. Live music often has incredible detail, and hearing it from a good seat I freak out over it. All that detail information should be reproduced as much as possible. Good information retrieval is *not* about spotlighting detail; the prodigious amount of natural detail in live music isn't spotlit either, but it's all there.

In my view, there are other qualities that are equally important such as a smooth natural tonal balance, coherency, wide dynamics (micro- and macro-) and soundstaging, all in addition to reproducing as much information as possible. It's the balance that's key, and each of us may have a different priority of the qualities that we deem important.

But smooth natural tonal balance, coherency, wide dynamics (micro- and macro-) and soundstaging are all musical information as well. And yes, you are right, they should be reproduced. It's all information on the recording.

Let me give an example For the past two weeks, I have been evaluating some different hookup wiring in my Intact Audio Autoformer Volume Control. The main contenders so far are Audio Note Silver Litz and a generic copper Litz. With the Silver Litz I can hear slightly more subtle details in live recordings especially, but this comes at a cost of some tonal balance irregularities---a slight added brightness and a more than slight leanness in the lower midrange. The copper Litz sounds almost but not quite as detailed as the Audio Note; however, the copper has to my ears a smoother, more neutral tonal balance. I haven't made any decisions yet since I still have some more wires to try, but if I had to choose right now between the two described here I would go with the copper Litz despite its having a tad less resolution. It's a question of priorities and balance.

I get what you're saying. I could hear even more detail than I already do with more toe-in of my speakers. But I have toed them out almost completely for a more natural balance. Fortunately my system is resolving to a degree that also without the HF emphasis that I could gain from more toe-in, tons of detail comes through.

 

[PeterA]

I get what you're saying. I could hear even more detail than I already do with more toe-in of my speakers. But I have toed them out almost completely for a more natural balance. Fortunately my system is resolving to a degree that also without the HF emphasis that I could gain from more toe-in, tons of detail comes through.

Al, if more toe-in increases detail by emphasizing high frequencies, is that not spot lighting detail? I hear this HF emphasis in many systems for a variety of reasons, but I never hear it listening to live music or at least I don’t recognize it as such precisely because high frequencies don’t draw attention to themselves the way they do in so many systems.

I find it difficult to take apart the sound, or break it down into bits and pieces at a live event, but it is often quite easy to do this with some systems because they are not balanced or natural sounding. My mind often wanders to image outlines or boomy bass or shrill highs or black backgrounds. Live acoustic music is not like that.

I prefer your system without toe-in for a more balanced sound without the spotlighted detail.

 

[tima]

I think it’s also a case of what sounds real to one person may not sound real to another.
We can both be present at the same live concert and agree that it sounds real (how can you dispute that?) ...

It strikes me that there is a contradiction in the first sentence and the follow-on phrase, but we'll skip past that for now with its sufficient hedge "may not" - although it does seem to imply that what sounds real to one can sound real to another.

First we stipulate that none of us is ever in the same physical position as another during a listening session or at a concert. Second we can stipulate that your ears and aural awareness are not mine and vice versa. Third we can stipulate that reproduction is not the same as an original event from which the reproduction is made. The two are not identical. Agree so far?

Okay, now we go out on a limb with our eyes closed and claim each of us can distinquish listening to a live event from listening to a reproduction. For example, when we hear the BSO perform we don't mistake that for hearing a recording of a BSO performance. Maybe we really go out on a limb and say we can tell the difference between a live broadcast and a recording when both are heard over the radio.

Perhaps more simply, we recognize live music when we hear it. Agree?

... but given that a stereo system can only reproduce a fraction of that experience it comes down to which elements are important to us. What is salient to you may be different for others.
I suspect that some aspect of David’s system and the one you have now reminds YOU of live music and that is what matters. But ultimately it fails, as all systems do, to reproduce all aspects of live music.

Okay for now, put aside fractions and 'elements of relevant importance', forget what is salient, forget aspects. Those are the analytic side of listening. (If all that one experieces during listening are elements and aspects then perhaps one is a true audiophile (audio file?). That was sarcasm.)

Consider a more holistic approach. We each hear twenty live concerts of the BSO and we agree we're hearing live concerts. Consider we each hear a recording of a BSO concert on two different systems. Can we each gauge whether system A sounds more like a live concert, live music, than system B, or vice versa? It's not about my 'elements of relevant importance' or yours - we each, I believe, can make the assesment that one of the two systems sounds more like live music.

It doesn't matter if the clarinet on the recording sounds like a BSO clarinet. After playing the instrument and hearing it played many many times I have an 'aural composite' in my head of clarinet sound and can distinquish it easily from the sound of other instruments. Just as we can say 'I know live music when I hear it', I believe we can say system A sounds more like live music than system B - with the same amount of relative ease. It's not an analytic exercise.

Now whether each of prefers a system that sounds more like live music or prefers a system that sounds like something else they prefer, that reflects our preference. It's not good or bad, it's our preference.

 

[tima]

Al, if more toe-in increases detail by emphasizing high frequencies, is that not spot lighting detail? I hear this HF emphasis in many systems for a variety of reasons, but I never hear it listening to live music or at least I don’t recognize it as such precisely because high frequencies don’t draw attention to themselves the way they do in so many systems.

I was noodling with a similar notion in a review I'm working on. Many people over the age of 40 30 25 have some form of high frequency loss. A variety of tweaks, particuarly footers, are used "to capture the top end details". It's not that the details are not there, it's that they can no longer be heard. The issue becomes trying to 'fix' one thing you end up effecting a different thing, which prior to the fix was perfectly fine. The tweak merry-go-round never ends.

 

[Addicted to hifi]

I was noodling with a similar notion in a review I'm working on. Many people over the age of 40 30 25 have some form of high frequency loss. A variety of tweaks, particuarly footers, are used "to capture the top end details". It's not that the details are not there, it's that they can no longer be heard. The issue becomes trying to 'fix' one thing you end up effecting a different thing, which prior to the fix was perfectly fine. The tweak merry-go-round never ends.

I noticed I don’t hear high frequencies as good anymore and I am only 50.

 

[Addicted to hifi]

I noticed some cds I have had since I was around 16 years of age that had beautiful high frequencies but I can no longer hear it or it is hardly noticeable.

 

[Addicted to hifi]

Like vintage speakers my hearing is becoming vintage.

 

[dcathro]

I noticed some cds I have had since I was around 16 years of age that had beautiful high frequencies but I can no longer hear it or it is hardly noticeable.

CDs came out 38 years ago. if you have had CDs at the age of 16, you can be no older than 54. That cannot be normal age related hearing decline!

 

[Addicted to hifi]

CDs came out 38 years ago. if you have had CDs at the age of 16, you can be no older than 54. That cannot be normal age related hearing decline!

I am 50.I swear some cds I can no longer hear the high frequencies like I used to.these cds I have heard many times and know them very well, but the high frequencies are weaker to the point where some I cart hear at all.

 

[Addicted to hifi]

I have had ear tests and my hearing is normal for my age.

 

[Lagonda]

I was noodling with a similar notion in a review I'm working on. Many people over the age of 40 30 25 have some form of high frequency loss. A variety of tweaks, particuarly footers, are used "to capture the top end details". It's not that the details are not there, it's that they can no longer be heard. The issue becomes trying to 'fix' one thing you end up effecting a different thing, which prior to the fix was perfectly fine. The tweak merry-go-round never ends.

With the risk of getting mauled by a angry mob, some speaker's voicing comes to mind. Especially some Wilson speakers where voiced for older gents with some high frequency hearing loss !

 

[MarcelNL]

Hearing loss (without help from overly enthusiastic DJ's etc) starts right after your 20-ies...

Figure 2. Age-related hearing loss according to the International...

Download scientific diagram | Age-related hearing loss according to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 7029 standard. Shown are audiograms for females (A) and males (B). The x-axis displays the pure tone frequency (Hz) and the y-axis the hearing thresholds (dB HL). Each...

www.researchgate.net

 

[tima]

With the risk of getting mauled by a angry mob, some speaker's voicing comes to mind. Especially some Wilson speakers where voiced for older gents with some high frequency hearing loss !

I can certainly hear the difference between their previous beryllium tweeter and the newer silk dome. ... or, dagnabit, maybe I'm just hearing the marketing. My wife calls me 'eagle ears'.

I think the mob is sleeping. Haven't seen a "don't like that" post from bonzo all night.

 

[MarcelNL]

There always is the good old tone sweep you can use to verify your ears, and with an app on your phone you can use it to do a rough check on your speakers to see how both meet each other.

 

[Lagonda]

I can certainly hear the difference between their previous beryllium tweeter and the newer silk dome. ... or, dagnabit, maybe I'm just hearing the marketing. My wife calls me 'eagle ears'.

I think the mob is sleeping. Haven't seen a "don't like that" post from bonzo all night.

Many moons ago i was invited to an event where Jacques Mahul was talking about/demonstrating his latest Utopia speakers, the first to use Focals Beryllium tweeters. The shop owner was determined to sell me a pair of Grand Utopias, but i resisted and opted for Martin Logan Statements instead. Feeling somewhat obligated to buy something with Focals founder having traveled all the way to Florida, i ordered a custom colored pair of Mini Utopias with the intend of using them as monitor speakers in one of the recording rooms in my commercial studio. Nobody wanted to use them, the mix-engineer and producers where all impressed with the level of detail, but did not like the long term exposure to the little screamers ! I ended up taking them home and using one as a center channel, hanging from piano wire behind the screen in my home theater. Recently i used it as a TT motor stand when i was experimenting with Pabst motors.
P. S. Ked is awake and disliking Wilson now !

 

[Al M.]

Al, if more toe-in increases detail by emphasizing high frequencies, is that not spot lighting detail?

Yes, that was exactly my point.

I hear this HF emphasis in many systems for a variety of reasons, but I never hear it listening to live music or at least I don’t recognize it as such precisely because high frequencies don’t draw attention to themselves the way they do in so many systems.

I find it difficult to take apart the sound, or break it down into bits and pieces at a live event, but it is often quite easy to do this with some systems because they are not balanced or natural sounding. My mind often wanders to image outlines or boomy bass or shrill highs or black backgrounds. Live acoustic music is not like that.

I find it easy to take apart the sound at a live event, just like any sound. It is also important to me for building a reference. But I try to curb my analytical mind to some extent in order to enjoy the music.

I prefer your system without toe-in for a more balanced sound without the spotlighted detail.

Me too, in principle. Depending on the acoustics of the moment (humidity, temperature etc.) I may choose just a slight toe-in, but I make sure not to overshoot.

Yet this is just my speaker setup; in other setups more toe-in may be required.