The language of Reproduction and the language of Music.

[Cellcbern]

Agreed, a "black background" is artificial, and not something virtuous to aspire to, even if in some audiophile press it is made out to be as such. I use the term "calm background", which also hints at the lack of electronic noise, but does allow for hall ambience, for example. The better my system becomes, the calmer the background from which the music arises in all its vividness and excitement.

Don't agree. There is nothing wrong with the term "black background" which I suspect was originally coined to describe an absence of electronic artifacts and other noise. It is also obvious that the term only refers to electronically reproduced music and not to the live performance. If you prefer "calm background" that's fine too, but "black background" does not necessarily imply a lack of reproduced hall ambience. As with all of the terms in the audiophile "glossary" their meaning and value is as much a function of how they are used by the writer as the terms themselves.

 

[PeterA]

That’s funny. My mother made a similar comment when we moved from Chicago to Boston in 1980 when I was a teenager. Attending the Chicago Symphony was a much more formal affair then it was in Boston in those days. Chicago was suits and long dresses, often dinner jackets on the first night. Boston was more casual then, skirts and sweaters and pants. Now people arrive in jeans. People can wear what they want, but the last time I went, pre COVID, I wore a jacket and tie and no mask. Symphony for me is an event usually preceded by a nice lunch or followed by a good dinner, so I prefer to get dressed up.

 

[bazelio]

Don't agree. There is nothing wrong with the term "black background" which I suspect was originally coined to describe an absence of electronic artifacts and other noise. It is also obvious that the term only refers to electronically reproduced music and not to the live performance. If you prefer "calm background" that's fine too, but "black background" does not necessarily imply a lack of reproduced hall ambience. As with all of the terms in the audiophile "glossary" their meaning and value is as much a function of how they are used by the writer as the terms themselves.

I always consider "black background" to refer to electronic noise floor, not hall ambience. But, I have also found that everything required to achieve an extremely low noise floor, where you couldn't hear anything at full volume (no music playing) with your ear an inch from the speaker, also sucks the life out of the music. This can include hall ambience - general nuance.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

to fully render recording venue ambience requires a good degree of a black background. especially to get the 'lit' stage recesses that allow the decays to propagate and linger. along with quiet, a system needs the bottom octave with amp headroom to be fully rendered to get all of the bed of room presence. it's the combination of both of those where you get transported. it completes the picture and brings the ease, scale and authority to the music. big music can then get big. and small music can stay relatively small in the venue context. music is more real.

analog can do these things easier. digital is more challenged. but (i've recently found that) it's possible with digital to do it.

 

[microstrip]

What is the illusion in the concert hall?

When in doubt, toole your way out.

There is no illusion in the concert hall - there you have the proper acoustic sound field - in every point of the space you have the proper acoustic wave vector. In stereo you do not have it, you imagine it. It is why people refer to the stereo illusion.

BTW, everyone is entitled to have their subjective opinions on perception and preference, but when addressin the fundamentals and physics of stereo F. Toole and the hundreds of audio scholars he quotes are the real authority.

 

[PeterA]

Why use the term “black background“ when we already have the term low noise floor? I think of the word background in the visual sense What is behind the instruments. Is it silent black space nothingness/ absence without border or is it a defined and energized space? I think of it as the latter. Hall ambience is even more specific to the particular recording venue and is used to describe the character of the specific space captured on the recording and presented by the system.

I want to hear a lack of noise floor or a low noise floor from the system across recordings but I do not want to hear a black background across all recordings.

just my opinion, which seems to be in the minority.

 

[Elliot G.]

I love this conclusion, and it is a sensible approach that many audiophiles do not take into consideration. I understand your position on orchestral music, and I agree with you that most listening rooms are not adequate in terms of size and treatment to come even close to recreating the scale, intensity, and the low level harmonic information that triggers our brains to be able to imagine the size and acoustic properties of the venue of a full orchestral performance.

I spent quite a few evenings when I was relatively new to hi fi listening to symphonic performances in HP's room on his IRS set-up. His original room before the fire was long and rather narrow. He was able to extract a near-field sonic presentation in that room with that system which was consistent with his musical perspective from his Carnegie Hall seat which was front and center. He of course wrote eloquently about these experiences, but they are experiences that most people never get to have, and his near-field perspective is not desirable to many listeners. His legacy is valuable in that he did expand the vision and language of hi fi, somewhat for the better and somewhat for the worse.

There is much to share in terms of expanding this discussion, and I will spend some time reading what Jeff Day had to say before proceeding too much further. I do think, however, that everyone would be better served if the review press spent more time talking about the relationship of home listening space to music and what one can reasonably expect to achieve given the space with which they must operate. Dan D'Agostino said to me years ago as a comment about his huge mono blocks: "It takes big things to recreate big things." Not everybody wants or can go there, and on blogs and other types of evaluative expositions, the distinction is rarely made when discussing the sound of a component in a system the extent to which other components in the system and, perhaps more importantly, the listening space given its size and room treatment are capable of working together to reproduce a reasonable facsimile of what is on the source material. I would not take someone's advice about the performance of a powerful amplifier, for example, if they had large full-range speakers and subwoofers in an average-sized relatively untreated listening room.

One of my favorite systems in my home is in the library which is about 12 x 12 feet as measured outside of the built-in book shelves. I very nice pair of bookshelf speakers powered by my whole house amplifier, a run-of-the-mill multichannel preamp and a Roon server is perfectly engaging and enjoyable for vocals, trios, quartettes, etc. It takes a big rig and a big space that has been acoustically engineered to reproduce large orchestral works in a way that makes one truly grateful for the music listening opportunity. It can approach a live music listening experience, and one does not need to put on your fancy duds, travel, find a place to park, grab dinner, and sit beside someone who unwraps hard candy and has influenza or worse. Just saying -- it's no picnic being as isolated as many of us are in these times, but I will gladly drink the lemonade. I am finding a greater appreciation for the music I can make at home.

I think you have hit a nail on the head when you talk about the scale of audio. One should really give some thought to the speakers they want based on the room you are going top listen in. I too spent numerous evenings listening to the reference system at HP's home. My first reaction to seeing the IRS in that Victorian dinning room was "did a plane crash in here?' Harry managed to get a great sound from them and as you said it was very nearfield. I think we were sitting around 6-8 feet from those monsters. When I went back to the sacred back room at Lyric we had a much different size room. From my own experience many want to get those big bad speakers but have not given much thought to how they will work in their room. The first time I ever really appreciated the XLF's was in your rooms since they were a size that allowed them to really play. Almost every other time I had heard them they were really way to large for the room and a smaller speaker would have worked and sounded better in that space. With our speakers I mostly recommend the Marquis since the average listening room down here is somewhere in the 12 by 18 to 16 by 20 room size. The person who has a large room or builds a dedicated space can of course plan and build a proper sized room to hold the monsters available today. Its really hard to produce a full scale orchestra let alone in a 12 by 16 foot room.
I have enjoyed the time I have spent during these last two years and I am thrilled that I have Qobuz since this is the ultimate jukebox experience. You can find almost anything and it can sound great without ever getting off the seat of your pants all for a few bucks a month.
This plus the quality that is now available via streaming allows you to really have that "time machine" in your listening room

 

[microstrip]

Don't agree. There is nothing wrong with the term "black background" which I suspect was originally coined to describe an absence of electronic artifacts and other noise. It is also obvious that the term only refers to electronically reproduced music and not to the live performance. If you prefer "calm background" that's fine too, but "black background" does not necessarily imply a lack of reproduced hall ambience. As with all of the terms in the audiophile "glossary" their meaning and value is as much a function of how they are used by the writer as the terms themselves.

We had several threads on "black background" - most people in the high-end community use it the sense you refer and consider it a positive aspect. However, a small group in WBF who disagrees on using audio vocabulary to describe the sound and prefers to characterize it mostly by the negatives seized the term and changed its common meaning, sometimes just based on semantics or pseudo-analogies with real music.

The same for pinpoint, detail and outline. Commonly positive aspects of good stereo sound reproduction are presented at their extreme zones and generalized as such.

 

[PeterA]

The same for pinpoint, detail and outline. Commonly positive aspects of good stereo sound reproduction are presented at their extreme zones and generalized as such.

Francisco, since this thread is about the language of reproduction and the language of music, can you give an example from either reproduced music or music you hear in the concert hall where the terms pinpoint and outline make sense?

I hear them in some audio systems where images of instruments are reduced and very defined, so in that sense the terms have meaning, but I never hear these characteristics from live music. Perhaps you can describe when you heard them and why they are considered positive attributes.

 

[MarcelNL]

My perception is that a term like 'blacker background' is not a very precise way to describe something which is perhaps better described by 'better contrast', the actual 'audiophile slang' is IMO definitely open to improvements yet I try to read beyond some phrases when reading a review using that slang. It helps me to 'calibrate' my perception using gear that specific reviewer is describing.

Personally I aim for 'organic' or 'natural' overall sound fingerprint, and it has to fit the room it is reproduced in (with or without treatment), volume is a great equalizer of rooms though (meaning that some types of music can be played louder than others in the same room).

 

[bazelio]

Francisco, since this thread is about the language of reproduction and the language of music, can you give an example from either reproduced music or music you hear in the concert hall where the terms pinpoint and outline make sense?

I hear them in some audio systems where images of instruments are reduced and very defined, so in that sense the terms have meaning, but I never hear these characteristics from live music. Perhaps you can describe when you heard them and why they are considered positive attributes.

Quite often recorded music doesn't sound like live in-person music, depending on mic'ing techniques, production, etc. Defined outlines, pinpoint images during playback are often true to a recording. Whereas if the playback system instead diffuses the source material into a different presentation, even if some aspects of it are now more representative of the live experience, that can be to some people a highly undesirable coloration.

 

[ddk]

Quite often recorded music doesn't sound like live in-person music, depending on mic'ing techniques, production, etc. Defined outlines, pinpoint images during playback are often true to a recording. Whereas if the playback system instead diffuses the source material into a different presentation, even if some aspects of it are now more representative of the live experience, that can be to some people a highly undesirable coloration.

In the 40 odd commercial recordings and mixes that I was part of I've NEVER seen/heard outlines and pinpoint images during any of the irrespective of mic'ing techniques. Close up mic'ing doesn't create any outline or pinpoint images, this stuff is pure hifi and artifacts of some components. This is a clear example how terminology led to unnatural and fake audiophile paraphernalia. Something maybe @tima wants to address in this thread.

david

 

[Cellcbern]

I was under the impression that imaging and soundstaging were artifacts of the recording process. You don't hear them at live performances. However for some audiophiles they add to the enjoyment of recorded music - enhance the illusion I suppose. Since they are not high on my list of sonic priorities I cannot explain why they are so important to some people, but I've had audio friends for whom pinpoint imaging was a critical criterion when selecting components.

 

[Tango]

My perception is that a term like 'blacker background' is not a very precise way to describe something which is perhaps better described by 'better contrast', the actual 'audiophile slang' is IMO definitely open to improvements yet I try to read beyond some phrases when reading a review using that slang. It helps me to 'calibrate' my perception using gear that specific reviewer is describing.

Personally I aim for 'organic' or 'natural' overall sound fingerprint, and it has to fit the room it is reproduced in (with or without treatment), volume is a great equalizer of rooms though (meaning that some types of music can be played louder than others in the same room).

What you wrote reflected your open-mindness. Imo such word "black background" or "blacker background" are not incorrect word or bad choice of using the word to describe an experience listening to a reproduced music. Writer may just plainly describe what he heard because that was what it sounded like, black. If his description is actually accurate of the sound he heard from that music reproduction then I actually appreciate it was honestly written with such words. How a reader interpret "black background" good or bad natural or unnatural, may be the recording was meant to hear that way or maybe not, maybe the gear is doing the effect or maybe not, should be left to him/herself to decide. If a writer obviously interpret black background as a constant positive attribute then we know how he/she views a live natural sound. Knowing how a person view sound is a must before using any data point from him/her.

 

[ddk]

I was under the impression that imaging and soundstaging were artifacts of the recording process. You don't hear them at live performances. However for some audiophiles they add to the enjoyment of recorded music - enhance the illusion I suppose. Since they are not high on my list of sonic priorities I cannot explain why they are so important to some people, but I've had audio friends for whom pinpoint imaging was a critical criterion when selecting components.

Pinpoint imaging has nothing to do with reality or recording process but soundstage exists in both. A good portion of this so called hifi glossary is there to describe component artifacts.

david

 

[ddk]

What you wrote reflected your open-mindness. Imo such word "black background" or "blacker background" are not incorrect word or bad choice of using the word to describe an experience listening to a reproduced music. Writer may just plainly describe what he heard because that was what it sounded like, black. If his description is actually accurate of the sound he heard from that music reproduction then I actually appreciate it was honestly written with such words. How a reader interpret "black background" good or bad natural or unnatural, may be the recording was meant to hear that way or maybe not, maybe the gear is doing the effect or maybe not, should be left to him/herself to decide. If a writer obviously interpret black background as a constant positive attribute then we know how he/she views a live natural sound. Knowing how a person view sound is a must before using any data point from him/her.

Yes, a black/blackish background can be created if natural ambience is eq'd out or in the case of 180g vinyl it can be an artifact as heard from audiophile pressings.

david

 

[MarcelNL]

actually that was not exactly what I was aiming at, I too sometimes use 'blacker background' to describe a sound fingerprint, yet the recording at hand can actually be a live recording that suddenly reveals more detail both in the background and foreground. As example I'll point at Arcadi Volodos in Vienna (a.o. on Qobuz), more precise; Childrens songs

I'll hear him play again (when Covid does not mess up things once more in Spring) and I do not expect black backgrounds there as the coughing and shuffling of a live audience is all to real, yet at the same time when a system is capable of reproducing both all the 'surplus noises' and the music performed I may be tempted to use a phrase like 'blacker background' where I probably should use 'more detail in back and foreground' or better separation between back and foreground, etc....
Just trying to say that ('audiophile') language is not always used as precise as can be, and especially not in case of non native speakers.

 

[microstrip]

Francisco, since this thread is about the language of reproduction and the language of music, can you give an example from either reproduced music or music you hear in the concert hall where the terms pinpoint and outline make sense?

I hear them in some audio systems where images of instruments are reduced and very defined, so in that sense the terms have meaning, but I never hear these characteristics from live music. Perhaps you can describe when you heard them and why they are considered positive attributes.

Pinpoint means you can localize the instruments in the soundstage with accuracy, not forcefully with precision. The instrument zone is not small, but fortunately our brain averages it and we can easily get an idea where they are. The size of instruments in mostly due to timbre energy and reflections.

In real concerts our perception is aided by visual cues. Closing your eyes for a few moments is a false experience, as your visual memory will influence your perception.

Outline is related to the way the boundaries are presented. In real music it depends a lot on the concert hall acoustics. In some halls you feel the instruments are almost palpable, in others you get a more distant perspective.

IMHO image outlines are very relevant to people listening to amplified music and depend a lot on the recording. Anyway these words ("image outlines") are very seldom used in high-end descriptions or reviews - but you seem focused on them.

Just to remember:

 

[microstrip]

I think one of the issues that leads to the discussion here comes from the experience of a reproduced performance being different than the experience of a live performance. Some people, not all, want a system that sounds closer to a live performance than not. And yes, if you are not interested in live performance, then you are probably not one of the people who wants their system to sound like one. And yes, just because you enjoy live performance does not mean you want your stereo to sound like one. And yes, there are all sorts of reasons for people go with the status quo and accept the state of reproduced audio just as it is.

Let's stipulate that reproduction will never be reality and that home stereo will not be mistaken for live performance. Nonetheless some people are dissatisfied with the direction of reproduced audio today because, to them, it seems to be moving further away from, not closer to, the live music experience. That is not enitrely different in your own interest in transparency to the recording although there is more to it than that. I have no problem in seeing a goal or a direction in the notion of the 'absolute sound', defined as the sound of live acoustic music. Don't get that notion confused with the magazine.
The language of audio you say has developed over the last 50 years - probably more like 60 years - that language has changed. I"ll reference the following interview with Paul Klipsch, - @ddk gets credit for bringing this to our attentionin in his brief thread It's Either Fidelity Or It's Infidelity.

People who are not interested in building stereo systems that bring them closer to the live experiernce are probably not interested in the topic of this thread. And that's fine. Audio can be entertaining whatever approach you take. But since this is a forum where we talk far more than we listen, I thought the topic worth exploring. I wish there was some big reveal at the end that resolved the two languages - maybe there will be - but I don't have it ... yet, though I do have some ideas. Maybe someone does, or maybe discussion will help us move closer to the sonic goal by talking about it.

For clarilty: When I talk about the language of music I mean the language of describing acoustic music when we hear it. (Just as the language of reproduction - the audiophile language - can describe hearing a stereo system or component.) I do not mean the technical underpinnings of reading music or playing music although those may provide background or impetus to understanding.

Tim,

The main objection I see to you point of view is who is the judge on being "closer to the live experience". The difference is so large and our individualism is so pronounced that I see little convergence in this aspect, except for the blatant cases. I have no doubts - once we get used to our systems, their particularities usually sound to us more like "real music".

 

[cmarin]

I just read a fascinating interview with Javier Guadalajara of Wadax in the January 2022 issue of Absolute Sound and found several of his statements that might be relevant to the discussion:

“Our philosophy is to recreate… the physical sensation of connection that comes from listening to music …by questioning accepted wisdom…ultimately including the listener in the program …to fasten on the things we felt were missing: the expressive and emotional elements in the performance, the way in which the brain activates key responses and reacts to specific kinds of signal degradation…This fundamentally different understanding of the listening process is our core principle.”

In essence: how to retain the emotional content in the signal.

To me the lesson from Mr.Guadalajara is clear: music is emotion. So how successful a system is in reproducing a musical event, depends on how well it retains the emotional content of the original performance. Not An easy feat, and one to which those lucky enough to have heard Mr. Guadalajara’s Wadax DAC, can attest.

So if you believe in the above assumption, then one appropriate language for judging a musical system is to develop criteria that measure or describe how well the system retains the emotional content of the original musical performance.