One of my most profound and educative audiophile experiences was not even remotely planned as one. Two decades ago when I was living in the Netherlands I was attending two live concerts with music of contemporary classical composer Alfred Schnittke. I was so in love with the music that I decided to follow the ensemble with the same program to two different locations. The first event was in the small hall of the main Utrecht classical concert venue (Vredenburg). The sound was rich and warm, with a beguiling wooden tone of strings and gutsy, golden-glowing brass. The second event was in Rotterdam, and I was sitting a bit further from the stage. The sound could not have been more different: it was bright, somewhat thin, even a bit cold; the crystalline clarity of sound on the other hand was enticing.
Was it less 'musical' in the second venue because it was less 'warm' or even 'cold' sounding? Of course not. It were the same players as at the other location, and they played precisely the same music on the same instruments just as well and dedicated as there. In my mind this calls into question the whole idea of 'warm and musical', as a combined term, an idea that is often expressed in audiophile circles including this board.
These two events, which started out as a purely musical journey (I just wanted to hear the music live twice), turned into a profound learning experience with respect to the huge timbral variety that live sound can entail. I have had similar experiences with concert hall acoustics on other occasions, but this one was especially powerful since it featured the same music with the same performers in different venues. Certainly, in many concert halls (depending on the seating position) the sound is indeed rather warm, as it was in the first venue visited, but obviously it is not always so.
This brings me to a comparison of different D/A converters in my system (courtesy of Goodwin's High End) that was astonishing in this respect. I compared my 20-year old (albeit modified) Wadia 12 with the NAD M51 and the Hegel HD25 DAC. While both DACs had a much fuller bass than the Wadia 12, they were musically less lively than that old unit, which excluded them for me from purchase. Yet among other things I also noticed the following: while all three DACs sounded similar in tonal balance on, for example, Günther Wand's 1996 recording of Bruckner's 5th symphony with the Berlin Philharmonic (RCA), a rather dark and full sounding recording, the sound considerably diverged on the recording of the same symphony with the same conductor but the Cologne Philharmonic 20 years earlier (Sony, 24-bit processing from analog tape). While strings and woodwinds sounded quite warm, the brass, especially trumpets, sounded bright and somewhat thin and brittle on the Wadia while it sounded much fuller on the other two DACs. Especially on the Hegel HD25 it sounded very similar to the Berlin brass in that acoustic even though the other DACs made a clear distinction! Thus, the Hegel compressed the timbral palette, also compared to the NAD -- and listening to more recordings with orchestral brass revealed that they all sounded similar on the Hegel. Until it became boring to me. Why should all brass sound the same? Nonetheless, since also the NAD made the brass sound fuller on the older Bruckner recording, yet not quite to the same extent as the Hegel, and the comparison was especially stark in the opening of Bruckner's 3rd from the same CD set, I was inclined to think that perhaps the old Wadia 12 showed some weakness here.
Yet when I tried the Berkeley Alpha DAC2 at home, I was surprised that, while the brass on the Bruckner 5th with Wand/Berlin Philharmonic sounded at least as full as with the Wadia 12, the brass on the older Bruckner set sounded just as bright and thin! The Berkeley DAC is designed by people who have a stellar reputation in pro audio (think Pacific Microsonics A/D converters) and thus are presumably interested in neutrality; also, the Berkeley DAC has the reputation of being the best of all the four converters tested (and it was, as it turned out). This suggested to me that the brass reproduction on that older Bruckner recording was not a weakness, but simply a faithful reproduction of what was on there. I concluded that both the Berkeley and the old Wadia probably got it right, while the NAD and the Hegel both were coloring the sound towards more richness, the Hegel the most (no doubt the Hegel DAC will be a great choice for people who want such a sound). The Berkeley though was much more refined, resolved and detailed than the Wadia, had much better and blacker bass than even the NAD and the Hegel, and had the same liveliness as the Wadia (finally a match for that converter's 'enthusiasm'!). So its purchase was a no-brainer for me.
The Wadia was also not able to quite the same extent as the Berkeley DAC to portray tonal saturation when it was present on the recording. Recently I was surprised how warm and palpably 'wooden' the sound of Maxwell Davies' 4th Naxos Quartet (on a Naxos CD) through the Berkeley DAC was. And just last week, upon listening to the CD of Shostakovich's 14th symphony conducted by Mariss Jansons, I was taken aback by how powerful and richly saturated in tone the voices of solo bass and soprano were (the symphony is written for orchestra and the two solo voices). On a number of recordings voices sound similar, yet on others much brighter, lighter and even thinner (obviously, it also depends on the characters of the voices themselves, not just on recorded acoustics). Similarly, other string quartet recordings differ greatly in timbre from the aforementioned quartet through my system *), up to a 'stringy' and bleached-out tone (the recent recording of Ferneyhough's complete quartets by the Arditti Quartet).
Yet of course my DAC will be matched by a number of other high grade D/A converters in its ability to portray a wide timbral palette from recordings; it may even be bettered by some in this regard. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if some highly regarded top DACs are more restricted in this particular aspect, somewhat similar to the Hegel HD25 DAC. My observations though are about a larger point in sound reproduction, which links to the live experience of different hall acoustics that I described in the opening of my post.
The larger point is this: Even though sometimes also I wish for a warmer sound reproduction on certain recordings (the 'warm and musical' thing, you know, I am not above this apparently common human desire), ultimately should not 'light' and 'thin' sounds/acoustics on a recording be reproduced as such, if the system demonstrates on other occasions that it is fully capable of producing a rich and fully saturated tone? In light of the vast variety of timbre of live sound in different venues and from different seating positions within the same hall this yields a more realistic and ultimately more satisfying overall experience, in my view.
***
Now here is where in my opinion most equipment reviews are severely deficient (regardless if written by professional reviewers or simply by audio enthusiasts on message boards):
It leaves me unsatisfied when I read that on this or that recording a particular component sounds thinner or more saturated in tone than another one, without specifying in the review how the components that are compared handle a wide timbral palette: Does one always sound warmer or richer than the other, or does one excel in portraying the entire timbral variety through vastly different sounding recordings more than the other? For example, while one component may sound thinner than the other on some recordings, can it sound just as full and saturated in tone as the other on other recordings, and vice versa? The latter question about wide timbral palette appears far more important when evaluating a component's ability to reflect the recorded source, but is rarely addressed in reviews (why for example can you not read about this aspect in any reviews of the NAD, Hegel and Berkeley DACs discussed above?). The painting of all recordings through an audio component with the same brush, either 'rich and warm' or 'cold and analytical', 'full' or 'thin', may not just be wrong, given the wide variety of (unamplified) live and subsequently also recorded sound, but in the long run also plain boring.
In my view the components or systems that are the most 'musical' should not be deemed the ones that always and invariably sound warm or tonally rich and saturated, but the ones that are able to realistically portray the widest timbral spectrum from diverse recordings, from warm to cold, from rich and saturated to light and 'thin'. After all, those components or systems best portray the wide variety of how live music actually can sound, and appear to contribute the least color on their own; they appear to be the most neutral to the sound of the music they are supposed to faithfully reproduce.
What do you think?
_________________________________________
*) That my system as a whole allows for such a wide timbral palette without on its own too much leaning into either the 'warm' or the 'cold' or ''analytical' direction, or compressing all colors in 'neutral' mode, is simply fortunate -- the amp/speaker combo was not chosen by me as the result of personal attention to performance in this respect. I chose the combo of amps and speakers more than 20 years ago for its sheer dynamism (both macro- and micro-dynamics) and liveliness, not for excellence in being able to portray a wide timbral palette (by the way, on my benign speaker load the parallel push-pull triode amps have a tonal balance almost identical to the Spectral DMA 260, which I tested in my system and which is perhaps a reasonable benchmark for neutrality). The removal of electronic noise by the recently acquired BorderPatrol external power supplies for my amps also contributes to timbral differentiation and thus to widening of the timbral spectrum, something that I hadn't anticipated either with that purchase but which I obviously enjoy.
Was it less 'musical' in the second venue because it was less 'warm' or even 'cold' sounding? Of course not. It were the same players as at the other location, and they played precisely the same music on the same instruments just as well and dedicated as there. In my mind this calls into question the whole idea of 'warm and musical', as a combined term, an idea that is often expressed in audiophile circles including this board.
These two events, which started out as a purely musical journey (I just wanted to hear the music live twice), turned into a profound learning experience with respect to the huge timbral variety that live sound can entail. I have had similar experiences with concert hall acoustics on other occasions, but this one was especially powerful since it featured the same music with the same performers in different venues. Certainly, in many concert halls (depending on the seating position) the sound is indeed rather warm, as it was in the first venue visited, but obviously it is not always so.
This brings me to a comparison of different D/A converters in my system (courtesy of Goodwin's High End) that was astonishing in this respect. I compared my 20-year old (albeit modified) Wadia 12 with the NAD M51 and the Hegel HD25 DAC. While both DACs had a much fuller bass than the Wadia 12, they were musically less lively than that old unit, which excluded them for me from purchase. Yet among other things I also noticed the following: while all three DACs sounded similar in tonal balance on, for example, Günther Wand's 1996 recording of Bruckner's 5th symphony with the Berlin Philharmonic (RCA), a rather dark and full sounding recording, the sound considerably diverged on the recording of the same symphony with the same conductor but the Cologne Philharmonic 20 years earlier (Sony, 24-bit processing from analog tape). While strings and woodwinds sounded quite warm, the brass, especially trumpets, sounded bright and somewhat thin and brittle on the Wadia while it sounded much fuller on the other two DACs. Especially on the Hegel HD25 it sounded very similar to the Berlin brass in that acoustic even though the other DACs made a clear distinction! Thus, the Hegel compressed the timbral palette, also compared to the NAD -- and listening to more recordings with orchestral brass revealed that they all sounded similar on the Hegel. Until it became boring to me. Why should all brass sound the same? Nonetheless, since also the NAD made the brass sound fuller on the older Bruckner recording, yet not quite to the same extent as the Hegel, and the comparison was especially stark in the opening of Bruckner's 3rd from the same CD set, I was inclined to think that perhaps the old Wadia 12 showed some weakness here.
Yet when I tried the Berkeley Alpha DAC2 at home, I was surprised that, while the brass on the Bruckner 5th with Wand/Berlin Philharmonic sounded at least as full as with the Wadia 12, the brass on the older Bruckner set sounded just as bright and thin! The Berkeley DAC is designed by people who have a stellar reputation in pro audio (think Pacific Microsonics A/D converters) and thus are presumably interested in neutrality; also, the Berkeley DAC has the reputation of being the best of all the four converters tested (and it was, as it turned out). This suggested to me that the brass reproduction on that older Bruckner recording was not a weakness, but simply a faithful reproduction of what was on there. I concluded that both the Berkeley and the old Wadia probably got it right, while the NAD and the Hegel both were coloring the sound towards more richness, the Hegel the most (no doubt the Hegel DAC will be a great choice for people who want such a sound). The Berkeley though was much more refined, resolved and detailed than the Wadia, had much better and blacker bass than even the NAD and the Hegel, and had the same liveliness as the Wadia (finally a match for that converter's 'enthusiasm'!). So its purchase was a no-brainer for me.
The Wadia was also not able to quite the same extent as the Berkeley DAC to portray tonal saturation when it was present on the recording. Recently I was surprised how warm and palpably 'wooden' the sound of Maxwell Davies' 4th Naxos Quartet (on a Naxos CD) through the Berkeley DAC was. And just last week, upon listening to the CD of Shostakovich's 14th symphony conducted by Mariss Jansons, I was taken aback by how powerful and richly saturated in tone the voices of solo bass and soprano were (the symphony is written for orchestra and the two solo voices). On a number of recordings voices sound similar, yet on others much brighter, lighter and even thinner (obviously, it also depends on the characters of the voices themselves, not just on recorded acoustics). Similarly, other string quartet recordings differ greatly in timbre from the aforementioned quartet through my system *), up to a 'stringy' and bleached-out tone (the recent recording of Ferneyhough's complete quartets by the Arditti Quartet).
Yet of course my DAC will be matched by a number of other high grade D/A converters in its ability to portray a wide timbral palette from recordings; it may even be bettered by some in this regard. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if some highly regarded top DACs are more restricted in this particular aspect, somewhat similar to the Hegel HD25 DAC. My observations though are about a larger point in sound reproduction, which links to the live experience of different hall acoustics that I described in the opening of my post.
The larger point is this: Even though sometimes also I wish for a warmer sound reproduction on certain recordings (the 'warm and musical' thing, you know, I am not above this apparently common human desire), ultimately should not 'light' and 'thin' sounds/acoustics on a recording be reproduced as such, if the system demonstrates on other occasions that it is fully capable of producing a rich and fully saturated tone? In light of the vast variety of timbre of live sound in different venues and from different seating positions within the same hall this yields a more realistic and ultimately more satisfying overall experience, in my view.
***
Now here is where in my opinion most equipment reviews are severely deficient (regardless if written by professional reviewers or simply by audio enthusiasts on message boards):
It leaves me unsatisfied when I read that on this or that recording a particular component sounds thinner or more saturated in tone than another one, without specifying in the review how the components that are compared handle a wide timbral palette: Does one always sound warmer or richer than the other, or does one excel in portraying the entire timbral variety through vastly different sounding recordings more than the other? For example, while one component may sound thinner than the other on some recordings, can it sound just as full and saturated in tone as the other on other recordings, and vice versa? The latter question about wide timbral palette appears far more important when evaluating a component's ability to reflect the recorded source, but is rarely addressed in reviews (why for example can you not read about this aspect in any reviews of the NAD, Hegel and Berkeley DACs discussed above?). The painting of all recordings through an audio component with the same brush, either 'rich and warm' or 'cold and analytical', 'full' or 'thin', may not just be wrong, given the wide variety of (unamplified) live and subsequently also recorded sound, but in the long run also plain boring.
In my view the components or systems that are the most 'musical' should not be deemed the ones that always and invariably sound warm or tonally rich and saturated, but the ones that are able to realistically portray the widest timbral spectrum from diverse recordings, from warm to cold, from rich and saturated to light and 'thin'. After all, those components or systems best portray the wide variety of how live music actually can sound, and appear to contribute the least color on their own; they appear to be the most neutral to the sound of the music they are supposed to faithfully reproduce.
What do you think?
_________________________________________
*) That my system as a whole allows for such a wide timbral palette without on its own too much leaning into either the 'warm' or the 'cold' or ''analytical' direction, or compressing all colors in 'neutral' mode, is simply fortunate -- the amp/speaker combo was not chosen by me as the result of personal attention to performance in this respect. I chose the combo of amps and speakers more than 20 years ago for its sheer dynamism (both macro- and micro-dynamics) and liveliness, not for excellence in being able to portray a wide timbral palette (by the way, on my benign speaker load the parallel push-pull triode amps have a tonal balance almost identical to the Spectral DMA 260, which I tested in my system and which is perhaps a reasonable benchmark for neutrality). The removal of electronic noise by the recently acquired BorderPatrol external power supplies for my amps also contributes to timbral differentiation and thus to widening of the timbral spectrum, something that I hadn't anticipated either with that purchase but which I obviously enjoy.
