The State of High End Audio

[Robh3606]

Prop 1 is the subjective way. Listen to live music then pick equipment that your memory tells you is what those instruments sounded like. Prop 2 is the objective way, pick components that measure well. You can add the subjective sound good to you also if you wish.

Hello Baeur

I do 1 and 2 and I find it works really well. Why the division between the two?? The whole thing about live instruments as a reference is kinda bogus to me. I don't know about what you hear when you listen but to me most CD's are different from each other. Very little sounds the same even between songs on the same CD. There is so much variability in the source depending on how it's mixed and what effects are used I don't see the connection. As I see it every disk is it's own reference and idea is to get a system that lets you hear what's there. To me if they all sound a bit different you are going in the right direction.

Rob

 

[esldude]

yes and the point of reproduced music is? the goal is? visceral gut wrenching soul effecting life afferming misical transfer from musican to listener in the home via some electronics. if your not getting this you have wasted your money and if you are then you will be happy regardless of any ideas people have on forums about digital or vinyl or sample rate or cables or tweeks etc etc

its all VERY simple and it all goes on befor the conscious mind. you can mess with this with critacal listening but its best not to bother as its no fun.

unless your making the electronics or trying to record the music then that another thing.

I agree wholeheartedly with the why of music reproduction, and some cerebral acknowledgement of fidelity is not it. I have nothing against a system the pretties up the music, puts the lipstick on it so to speak. I think a big problem with the state of the high end however is confusing the two conditions. Get the fidelity right, study what is pretty and know the difference.

A big for instance is my opinion that some amplifier topologies are more preferred prettiness than fidelity. Some amplifiers really are close to straight wire with gain. Making outlandishly expensive amps for the preferred type of sound is wasteful. Make a small version do what you want and feed the result to a more affordable transparent amp. You get what you want in a more controlled and resource effective manner. If you can manage the full signature of the preferred sound as DSP even better.

 

[esldude]

once we agree on the why the rest is of no importance,what ever gets you theer in a musical way not just big dynamics etc subtelty is vital and is missing from a lot of gear.

Transparent gear is transparent, it will do the subtle, the vital etc. Those qualities aren't beyond transparent gear, but a coloration that fortunately we can duplicate with good gear. Those qualities can sound like something they aren't.

i agree with the straight wire with gain idea problem is all wire seems to sound different so its never as simple as that.

We will have to agree to disagree on the wire.

if you get the feelings of the last post the 'why' plus a real tangable sense of the musicans playing together and how they play together in your room then we have the same thing. may of got there in different ways but who cares we are music lovers and have built systems that can convey this to us. a lot of kit out there wont do this (most)and many audiophiles have no clue what they are missing whether its the fault of thier gear of something lacking in them is another story

See this is the crux of the matter. A lot of gear that you say won't do this, in fact can. It doesn't create the alteration to the clean signal to cause it. Put that alteration in the signal fed to this gear and it passes on through to be enjoyed. This seeming fault is not a fault. You go looking for it and you will fix something not broken. So yes some audiophiles may be missing this experience they just need a way to add it to what they have.

 

[spiritofmusic]

i dont agree. have tried loads and very little can do what i need. i wish this was not the case but it is for me.
so many things in the chain can upset this musical experience, its not a simple thing.

if and it is not possible right now you could map a persons response to musical stimuli through a series of hearing tests. take that data and feed it into some kind of dsp and room corection software then yes i think we could boil things down in the simple way you seem to suggest.

you would need known electronics that are seen to produce universialy reconised ultra consistant and predictible exacting performance in all enviroments both acoustic and electrical or be mulipulated to do so to a common reference.
this would result in the end of hifi as a hardware based entity as the boxes would be all the same and driven by complex software.

i dont mind this idea but its not a reality yet and is a long long way off.

this would be my audio utopia but there will be a lot of vested intresting getting in its way.

right now the world can even agree on how to do ac treatment and it all changes the end result.

Spaz, is that you, the real you?
I mean, the wisdom and intuition is fully up to yr standards in that last answer. But, it's so legible and understandable w/out having to change glasses.
Did spellcheck suddenly appear on yr keyboard? LOL

Esl, I'm afraid we're a tad skeptical on the feed Class A/tubes into Class D and get all the signature of Class A/tubes w/all the benefits of Class D pwr.
Of course, you are Blizzards right hand guy/man on the ground, in setting the way fwd for this Grey-ve New World.

 

[esldude]

Spaz, is that you, the real you?
I mean, the wisdom and intuition is fully up to yr standards in that last answer. But, it's so legible and understandable w/out having to change glasses.
Did spellcheck suddenly appear on yr keyboard? LOL

Esl, I'm afraid we're a tad skeptical on the feed Class A/tubes into Class D and get all the signature of Class A/tubes w/all the benefits of Class D pwr.
Of course, you are Blizzards right hand guy/man on the ground, in setting the way fwd for this Grey-ve New World.

Well it isn't really new. Bob Carver did an equivalent thing long time ago. The skeptical bit is the norm. I am still amazed the Carver demo didn't get more people's attention. Wish more people would at least try it for themselves. Even when neither amp is fully transparent it is very educational and interesting.

 

[FrantzM]

its possible marc but what these people dont understand is our brains are all different so while they obsess about transparency of kit they forget the human factor. you would really need to map the brains responce and then yes even you could be fooled in therory at least that the transparent amp (class is meaningless) is in fact able to mimic your set. but what about source lol lol lol

i am with you marc as you know, if you know what music is then you have to try loads of kit and ac treatment till you get to your destination. i think most get off the train early at the wrong station without ever knowing whats ahead but i dont give a rats arse to be frank.

thomas moore wrote utopia a log time ago and we are far from it... no closer! why? human nature! the humble curcuit board will not change this nor will software... why? because they are human creations produced by human industry and being so will be inherantly flawed on some critical level.

Lost a little bit here ..

Question.

How do you move forward then? AS an industry? How do you progress without measuring it? Crapshoot? lucky strike? I don't think so.
I am in agreement with ESLdude: make it as clean s possible as a reproducer and add thereafter whatever you like to it. I do however concede that it is not only the sound that is the determinant . Often there are extraneous stimuli: as I noted earlier we may just not like this kind of gear and from there what we hear is filtered by our brain. Very similar to the vinyl lover not knowing he's listening to a ripped LP on a digital front end or more comically the vinyl lover lauding an LP and once he learns that it is digitally sourced starts finding all kind of digitalis in it. And sometimes the listener may need some other kind of validation ... Excuse the turn of words here: All valid approaches It is enjoyment the user is after...

 

[beaur]

Rob,

I was just trying to interpret. My goal is fairly straightforward. I start with the assumption that live music and reproduction in my house are 2 different realities so I don't try to replicate either in their own environments. After that I am looking for something I can sit down with and enjoy, that fits in my room and that I can afford. The first one I try not to compromise on, the latter 2 are definitely a balance, unless of course the Powerball jackpot comes my way!!!

Hello Baeur

I do 1 and 2 and I find it works really well. Why the division between the two?? The whole thing about live instruments as a reference is kinda bogus to me. I don't know about what you hear when you listen but to me most CD's are different from each other. Very little sounds the same even between songs on the same CD. There is so much variability in the source depending on how it's mixed and what effects are used I don't see the connection. As I see it every disk is it's own reference and idea is to get a system that lets you hear what's there. To me if they all sound a bit different you are going in the right direction.

Rob

 

[Purite Audio]

Rob,

I was just trying to interpret. My goal is fairly straightforward. I start with the assumption that live music and reproduction in my house are 2 different realities so I don't try to replicate either in their own environments. After that I am looking for something I can sit down with and enjoy, that fits in my room and that I can afford. The first one I try not to compromise on, the latter 2 are definitely a balance, unless of course the Powerball jackpot comes my way!!!

That is a very sensible approach, if you want live music in your front room then hire a band, otherwise we only have the reproduction of their performance to work with.
Keith.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, I agree with you. I am becoming increasingly convinced that there are basically two ways of looking at the hobby:

1. We want our systems to sound like what we think real instruments sound like because we listen to a lot of live music
or
2. We want our systems to reproduce as accurately as is currently technically possible exactly what is on the recording because that is all we have

I've made this point before, perhaps too many times, but there is a fatal flaw in this thinking. The system/component that does not accurately reproduce the recording in an effort to "sound like real" instruments is deliberately colored, and while it may enhance some recordings, to the taste of some listeners, it will detract from others. "Warmth" is great on bright recordings. It is mud on warm ones. What's worse, a system designed to give you a euphonic presentation will help the bad recordings, but it will hurt the best ones, where you really do want to get it as right as you can. The answer, of course, is control; the ability to roll off the highs or scoop out a bit of mid-bass as the recording and your ears deep necessary. EQ. Unfortunately, EQ is a four letter word in audiophile circles.

The latter can be verified through measurements, but the measurements are incomplete and don't tell us everything.

Yes. All science is theoretically incomplete.

The former is subjective and it can not be verified.

Of course it can. All you have to do to verify your preference is state it.

Both are powerful ideas and guide us in our decisions, but often those who adhere to one often infuriate those who adhere to the other, and visa versa.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone who believes in fidelity infuriated by those who believe in their preference. It's when they insist that their preference is inherently superior, with absolutely nothing but their opinion to back that up, that it gets difficult to let it pass.

There is not much overlap, as these many threads show, but I find calm in recognizing the distinction and appreciate that both are valid approaches and much can be learned by respecting what each view can teach us about the other.

I've got your overlap right here. I absolutely believe in getting the best fidelity I can afford, in the listening situation that I have. But I'm not above applying a bit of digital eq to make that fidelity more palatable when it sounds better to me.

Tim

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Well said.

 

[Gregadd]

Red Herring
Euphonic distortion and preferences are just designed to distract you.Just as blind test arguments are designed to detract your attention from the actual results
If it does not sound like real music it is boat anchor and should be treated accordingly.

 

[Detlof]

I've made this point before, perhaps too many times, but there is a fatal flaw in this thinking. The system/component that does not accurately reproduce the recording in an effort to "sound like real" instruments is deliberately colored, and while it may enhance some recordings, to the taste of some listeners, it will detract from others. "Warmth" is great on bright recordings. It is mud on warm ones. What's worse, a system designed to give you a euphonic presentation will help the bad recordings, but it will hurt the best ones, where you really do want to get it as right as you can. The answer, of course, is control; the ability to roll off the highs or scoop out a bit of mid-bass as the recording and your ears deep necessary. EQ. Unfortunately, EQ is a four letter word in audiophile circles.
C


Yes. All science is theoretically incomplete.



Of course it can. All you have to do to verify your preference is state it.



I don't think I've ever seen anyone who believes in fidelity infuriated by those who believe in their preference. It's when they insist that their preference is inherently superior, with absolutely nothing but their opinion to back that up, that it gets difficult to let it pass.



I've got your overlap right here. I absolutely believe in getting the best fidelity I can afford, in the listening situation that I have. But I'm not above applying a bit of digital eq to make that fidelity more palatable when it sounds better to me.

Tim

Tim, control is indeed the answer. My speakers came with a digital crossover, a professional unit, which gives me every possibility to shape the sound to my liking The thing is complex and my learning curve was rather flat at first, but in the end, used sparingly and carefully, the results are very pleasing.

 

[KeithR]

To return slightly to the original post, it is amazing how for example loudspeaker pricing/marketing has changed, when I visited my first Munich Hi-End really expensive loudspeakers were few and far between, Magico had just introduced their Mini, Wilson were showing a pair of Watt/Puppies ,Euros 50k was if I remember correctly the absolute maximimum, now every loudspeaker manufacturer has a 100k loudspeaker in their range.
And it is a good job that aluminium is plentiful because the enclosures for amplifiers have also grown more massive every year
to mirror the growth in absolutely enormous loudspeakers.
Unfortunately a very high percentage of the HiEnd no longer has anything to do with sound quality and has become what, luxury items, male jewellery ?
Keith.

+1 - right on Keith.

this was what i was getting to about the 30k system with monitors critique. i expect more for my $, but that's me.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Red Herring
Euphonic distortion and preferences are just designed to distract you.Just as blind test arguments are designed to detract your attention from the actual results
If it does not sound like real music it is boat anchor and should be treated accordingly.

No one has designs to distract you from your opinion, Greg, enjoy. But this is a discussion page. Alternate opinions, sometimes even data may be shared here that contradicts your opinion. Try not to take it as a personal affront.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, control is indeed the answer. My speakers came with a digital crossover, a professional unit, which gives me every possibility to shape the sound to my liking The thing is complex and my learning curve was rather flat at first, but in the end, used sparingly and carefully, the results are very pleasing.

I've made a point of asking for EQ advice from pros whenever I got a chance. A few things have emerged as patterns: Cut, don't boost, and do it gently. And pay attention to the sonic impact a cut in a certain range has to do with the content adjacent to that range.

I assume a system built into crossovers is used to EQ the room, not individual recordings?

Tim

 

[PeterA]

Tim, control is indeed the answer. My speakers came with a digital crossover, a professional unit, which gives me every possibility to shape the sound to my liking The thing is complex and my learning curve was rather flat at first, but in the end, used sparingly and carefully, the results are very pleasing.

Is it possible to design controls that do not add some coloration to the sound of the unit or system? I thought that was the reason for getting rid of tone controls in preference for accuracy or fidelity to the recording. If the signal is altered by going through a control of some kind, are you not compromising the fidelity of the component? Or are you talking about perfect controls that can be completely bypassed and add nothing to the signal?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Is it possible to design controls that do not add some coloration to the sound of the unit or system? I thought that was the reason for getting rid of tone controls in preference for accuracy or fidelity to the recording. If the signal is altered by going through a control of some kind, are you not compromising the fidelity of the component? Or are you talking about perfect controls that can be completely bypassed and add nothing to the signal?

Perfect, I don't know, but true bypass, a control that is completely out of the circuit when off, is not hard to achieve in analog or digital. Does it still have an impact because of the connections and the additional bit of wire? Sure, in some world. Is it audible? If it is, it's a bad piece of gear. It is, at least, not nearly as audible as a recording you find to be too bright or a room that needs correcting.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

No one has designs to distract you from your opinion, Greg, enjoy. But this is a discussion page. Alternate opinions, sometimes even data may be shared here that contradicts your opinion. Try not to take it as a personal affront.

Tim

I extend the same invitation to you.

 

[Detlof]

Tim,

Thank you for passing that one to me. That is exactly what remained at the end of my learning curve.
Before you woudn't believe how I messed things up. The first step of course is to eq the room, but then the possibility remains to gently tweak recordings, by changing slopes on the fly. I hardly use that anymore. I still think to be able to do that, you need to know live music, but at the same time have the fact firmly planted in you mind that what the rig tells me, has nothing to do with that. In fact if you yourself play an instrument, this truth is brought home to you in the first splitsecond. To be frank, that does not bother me. Sadly,the gear I own is not cheap, but what it does, lets me forget that basic split, mainly because I rarely listen to gear. In fact I hate it. What I want is the music to get through to me. It does not, when I play the piano, because in that particular case, the limits are selfevident. With recorded music you can sometimes strike lucky though, but it still ain' the real thing compared listening to the same artist in a real hall in a good seat.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I extend the same invitation to you.

Thank you. I do try.

Tim