The problem with this (which has been expounded on and explained extensively) is that so very few recordings actually represent what the home listener might have had the chance to hear live, unless you happened to be at the recording session, listening at the microphone location. Otherwise, the recording is of an event for which one has no frame of reference; we have to make assumptions in our minds about the recording and how it might relate to some of our actual experiences. Some of us who make or have made our own recordings can perhaps do this better than others, but it still depends on the memory of an event (with all of the known shortcomings in memory retrieval).
State of the industry - Roy Gregory Editorial
- Thread starter Elliot G.
- Start date
You and microstrip should get together to discuss all the problems we have in stereo reproduction. I was answering a question from Al M about what I mean by “resolving” and how it relates to “information“. You quoted a very vital part of my comment. Here it is again:
“In this case, it tells us more of what is captured on the recording and it makes the listening experience more like what we hear live...”
I am interested in an experience at home which reminds me of what I have when listening to live music. No suggestion on my part that the experience will be the same. It’s a humble goal. It is a personal thing, and I am the judge. Other people can make their own goal and assess for themselves how successful they are.
Last edited:
I think this is the key to why there is so much disagreement about what makes a successful home audio system. Despite @morricab's hypothesis that we all perceive audio in the same way (not entirely inconsistent with your comment I excerpted), we don't all interpret our perceptions in the same way.
The parts that made the tube amplifiers interesting again are just new technology. It is the point that was being debated. Although a few people like amplifiers with old leaky capacitors and noisy resistors they are a minority.
Aries Cerat claims that they include a lot of innovative technology in their amplifiers. Should we assume they are unique?
Although interesting, horns are a minority and so, not relevant to this general issue.
The reality is that some brands always find a buyer and others are almost impossible to sell. Unless we do a proper research - such as paying for information of prices of sold units or researching concluded sales we can't get an idea of the real used value. Or if we are sellers.
Concerning the ML3 I am selfish - I also want a speaker I like. And preferably something that finds a buyer if I do not like it in the long term ...
If you have a positive bias towards a brand it increases the probability that it will sound better to you. BTW, negative bias is even more insidious. No one listens in unbiased conditions, although a few people think they do. And good advertisement helps positive bias - the same way misleading advertisement can create negative bias in some people.
Ron,
You got speakers form a manufacturer that praises "pinpoint dimensional accuracy" (quoting his site) and have amplifiers praised for being able to create exceptional "black backgrounds". Why do you insist on using these words in a pejorative way, changing the meaning usually associated to them in the typical high-end language?
Peter,
Do you realize that the recording has a lot of information you do not get in real music and also a lot less? That the system has to cut part of it and enhance other parts to sound right?
In an instrumental sense the microphone is a lot more sensitive than our ears.
There are compromises in stereo sound reproduction, it is not a black and white process.
You, I and many others may agree with this statement, but there are clearly some here who don't...
Francisco, surely it depends very much on the recording. I don’t believe in the overly broad generalizations that you continuously make. I think we have different experiences, different goals, and different preferences. As a result, we have different approaches. That’s what makes the hobby so fascinating. I don’t think we will agree on this stuff.
Yes, I understand the medium is flawed and involves compromises. Who said anything about black and white?
Do we? When I go to concerts with family and friends and discuss the concert it is usually quite a similar experience had by myself and the others based on their words.
You guys are still arguing about whether we hear similarly or differently, or have the same frame of reference or not for describing music, what we hear, and what we want to hear?
I have two friends, both heavily into music, both with modest but good systems.
One hates where my system has gone, he loves the kind of "wall of sound" presentation that you hear at a rock arena. My system initially went in that direction and he couldn't get enough of it. Now he finds that highly individual tonal variation btwn albums and a much more natural timbral and textural presentation is not for him.
My other friend never took to my sound to start because it was so thick and one-note. Now he can't get enough of how he feels he hears proper differentiation of tone and instrumental/vocal realness btwn records, and a real sense of the acoustic of spaces.
Two totally different analyses and reactions to an evolving sound.
I have two friends, both heavily into music, both with modest but good systems.
One hates where my system has gone, he loves the kind of "wall of sound" presentation that you hear at a rock arena. My system initially went in that direction and he couldn't get enough of it. Now he finds that highly individual tonal variation btwn albums and a much more natural timbral and textural presentation is not for him.
My other friend never took to my sound to start because it was so thick and one-note. Now he can't get enough of how he feels he hears proper differentiation of tone and instrumental/vocal realness btwn records, and a real sense of the acoustic of spaces.
Two totally different analyses and reactions to an evolving sound.
To me what you describe is that your preference changed yet that of your friends did not (yet?)
The recording process can have exactly the same drivers and involve the same aims as listener preferences. The recording engineer can choose to aim to capture the true context and spirit of the performance and aim for it to sound naturally balanced, they can choose to mod and sculpt the sound to their own liking, they can chase specific areas of sound to focus on or compress the whole and they can create highlighted detail. They can exaggerate the scale and sense of space. A recent trend to crazily close recording of the piano to highlight the closeup mechanical sounds of keys and pedals in some explorative contemporary classical music is a trend that is an example of how much range there is in creative recording choice (for good and bad). Thankfully many great musicians and recording engineers and recording companies still aim for authenticity and to allow the original sound and intention of the music to come through.
Marcel, the twin experiences of a radically improved listening room acoustics, combined with vastly increased exposure to classical music in a variety of different spaces (on average a concert every fortnight over 5 years), has totally changed my appreciation of the kind of natural music reproduction that PeterA highlights.
So while my current naysaying friend is obsessed w playing music loudly off his iPod, blasting himself at Muse and Foo Fighters gigs at London Wembley Arena and O2, and turning his subs up, my way more sympathetic friend is really appreciating a greater reproduction of accurate instrumental timbre in its own individual space.
And tbh, my acoustics and a couple of hundred excellent sounding classical concerts since our move up here, has got me totally appreciating this evolution in my sound over the playful cacophony I used to rate in London as my ideal sound.
And the changes I've made in the last 5 years has served this eventual outcome.
My point was objective and general - it applies to microphones and stereo sound reproduction. You can speak about different experiences, but any one listening to stereo sound reproductions shares these common points - microphones and two channel sound reproduction.
If you believe the earth is flat and tell me you just want to debate how beautiful are the stars in the sky we have little to disagree.
On the contrary; and you didn't respond to the more important part of my post.
perhaps the most insightful conclusion: "The bottom line here is that we know so little about how humans perceive the sound quality of an audio system, and in particular the loudspeaker, that one should question almost everything that we think we know about measuring it"
I fully agree with your points. But you must consider that most great sound engineers have different views, equally valid, of what is a is a great recording. Just look at our members divergence of what are the great "natural" recordings that should be used as a reference.
It is always easy to write nice sounding statements about authenticity, original sound and intention. But as soon as we analyze individual recordings we find that in reality there is not such universal thing.
Consider, for example, the often referred tapes of the RR Arnold Overtures, Sheffield DD recordings or the John Culshaw recordings. I appreciate them a lot and consider them highly, but I realize that people that praise the "natural" do not share my enthusiasm.
Most of us list in our signature our gear. Probably it would be more significant to list our reference recordings - I have often referred mine along the years.
I never heard Stenheim sound great with SS, including with CH Precision. But it sounded great at Axpona with a Swedish tube brand (Enstrom?) and with Enstein OTL
Similar threads
