What's Best? The Absolute Sound or today's High End Systems?

Back in the day of Harry Pearson and the evolution of the High End Audio, Pearson, in the pages of The Absolute Sound, defined the "absolute sound" as unamplified acoustic instruments and/or vocals performed in a real space, usually a concert hall. The evaluation of reproduction systems (HiFi equipment) was a based on a subjective comparison to the "absolute sound." The best systems came the closest to the sound of a live performance in a real space.

Over the last several years I have been a regular attendee of live music in San Francisco at Davies Symphony Hall and The Metropolitan Opera House. I have come to the realization that, in my opinion, the best sound and musical enjoyment happens at home with my highly evolved system, and I question weather it's worth the expense and effort to attend, other than for the occasional performance of a favorite artist.

I've tried various seating choices, always seeking the best. But more and more I have come to the conclusion that the best seat in the house (at least sonically) is at home! Do other WBF members share this view?

 

Unfortunately not sure I agree with any of this really. Grouping everyone into just one prescribed framework of perceptual development isn’t reflective of any neuroscience modelling nor in life at all in general. Any correlations in learner patterns is more likely to be held in broad conceptual and thematic ways rather than just in any one concrete mileage based pathway. The magic 10k hours to some critical listening cycle of development also doesn’t really have any data or evidence to really corroborate it other than someone anecdotally nominated a time frame. Where are even the benchmarks for competence in critical listening. How is it validated at all?

Perceptual development for learners varies so very greatly, it isn’t about the exact number of the hours but varies based on a range of capacities and functions that come out of prior learning, experience and already developed individual pathways to understanding.

I know guys with well over 10k hours of music time up that have little or no real consciousness about what is going on at all.

In the end there is no default badge of merit that comes with having done a prerequisite amount of work, this isn’t just a directed skill, there is higher order synthesis involved. In terms of understanding we never stop growing. 10k is no more of a landmark than 50k hours...

Ultimately I don’t believe it is all about critical listening in itself at any rate (as if that has much singular and summative meaning on its own) but if we are talking music as much as sonics and rather than us just being some sonic tool (and many of us can act that way at times) it is in developing music appreciation to help consciously validate the experience and that is a lifetime journey that just can’t end and isn’t achieved just through critical analysis of itself at any rate.

Perceptual states vary and critical analysis is only ever a phase in understanding and is one of the number of perceptual states that is a temporary state within a quick change transition within a framework of other states. The greater cycle of consciousness itself is yet to be fully described.

How long it takes to work through all phases and states of being from my observations over years of teaching and assessing for learners to develop some holistic understanding (working with many very varied adult learners) the path in both time and direction is considerably different for all... we all have our own path and that is where the work comes, uncovering who we are in the process of absorbing everything else. If it was a simple a case of putting in the hours but not also the work then it would be an easy and rather cheap badge to get.

Hello Tao

I believe this actually derives from Outliers theory that requires a person to do something 20 hours a week for 10 years to master it.

I must say that in respect of the work I do, I am a lawyer, the combination of experience, knowledge built over the years and an understanding that you are always learning did veery much 'click' particularly as a trial advocate at that 10 year mark (in some respects sooner - some parts later).

No individual is the same (perhaps rather obvious - but it does need stating) as a personal journey for me I kind of accept that audio is just not live - never will - can be. It can give a great flavour. What's important is its ability to connect me to the music. This may be controversial - but high-end audio - is just boys jewellery - people saying otherwise are kidding themselves. If you just care about listening to music it can be done with a cheap streamer and a very basic system far below even £500.

Most musicians that I know say that they find audio very unsatisfying - in the same way that F1 drivers drive normal cars pretty slow on public roads. As such they often end up with very mundane audio systems as they just want to listen to the specific piece of music.

 

Hi Loweswaran,

Putting life into practice is a fantastic thing and having a few lawyers in my family I know how much it takes to do that work well.

With an established profession you also have a highly structured training program followed by intense full time professional practice for a long period and reasonably it is likely you would then expect some reasonably timely development into a kind of maturation. But even with that structured and well trialled (excuse severely accidental pun) development I’m not even sure that still all professionals master their professions at that point.

Many architects for instance are quite ordinary at a 10 year point into their professional practice and not too many are masters... perhaps many having competence rather than having mastered anything into an art and some may still at that point even be incompetent.

But more for me the question to the post was given the lack of full comprehension in the practice and nature of our listening how do we then even determine a criteria for competence in critical listening let alone when we master it into an art when there is not a formal or structured understanding of the process itself and no realistically available training to facilitate some timely programmed development in learning.

The notion of what performance criteria we would apply let alone specific learning outcomes and how do we do an assessment of critical listening and then further what it is to be a ‘master’ of the art of critical listening or just quite good at it.

None of this has any realistic validity as none of this practice (I can’t see it as an art tbh) is actually defined or set out and realistically the whole thing is just unregulated, not benchmarked nor is it even validated.

There are all sorts of claims through the entire post that just don’t ring true to me, but to be honest it just doesn’t seem to at all reflect life in a community where there are all kinds of listeners with very different focusses and capacities in terms of their approach and values in terms of technology, science, musical appreciation and in their capacity to define what they are experiencing with sound or music.

Perhaps if there was some definition and understanding of process and formalised training things would be a bit more uniform in performance outcomes but even then some may master, some may become competent and others may never become good at it but none of that really matters in truth if we are enjoying what we do get out of it.

The idea that the only aim worth having in this might be some greater awareness is in itself not something I agree with. Being unconscious and rich in music and completely content is as valid for a music lover as acquiring any other additional skill or art.

 

Recreate that immersive massive sound field ... put on some Donna Summer and turn it up.



Richter - sheer genius. What a touch.

Ah yes, much more a Richter man than a Donna Summer dude

 

When a speaker system can crack a bolt of lightning with the intensity, quickness, punch and power of the real thing? Then we can talk about "Absolute Sound".

Until then, all systems are just an approximation of real sound. Many attributes of reproduced sound can be enjoyable, even more so enjoyable than real sound but that just boils down to an individual listener's preference. (Example - I would not want a drum set in my listening room)

Tom

 

[...] Most musicians that I know say that they find audio very unsatisfying - in the same way that F1 drivers drive normal cars pretty slow on public roads. As such they often end up with very mundane audio systems as they just want to listen to the specific piece of music.

It might not be as black and white as that.

I happen to have quite a few acquaintances that are music teachers/performers, instrument makers etc. If they comment about audio at all, it's almost always that they're perfectly Ok with something mundane, never audio is unsatisfying. There are however a few that are very curious about or even into higher level audio. Story: Somebody told a violin maker friend that one of his creation sounds like a Guarneri del Gesù. So he came to my place to compare a couple of recordings of that one against the recordings of Guarneri and Strads in the Bein & Fushi book Miracle Makers that I happen to have. We ended up listening to so much more other stuff that his wife had to drag him out of the house. I suppose she really found audio unsatisfactory...

As for F1 drivers driving normal cars slowly, I don't know anybody at that level. But among the car people I hang out with, there are some very hardcore track guys. My humble observation is that a tell tale sign of driver of great skill is smoothness regardless of speed. At the end of the day, it's this smoothness that allows one of push hard against the limit with great confidence. Good drivers are in control at all times, anywhere and in any kind of car. So it should be possible to pick out the good ones in slow and mundane settings, if one knows what to look for. Same should apply to picking out the really good audio gear in any context. But, are we confident that we really know what we should be looking for?

Now I'm no expert, so I could well be totally wrong of course...

 

Please absolutely no commercial interest here: only a happy user of Preamp Cortese for over 15 years ...

Monday, April 9, 2018
What is your experience for the most liquidity and presence of midrange and emotion, if not an all DHT tube rectified transformer coupled pre-amp ?

I was asked this question:


What is your experience for the most liquidity and presence of midrange and emotion, if not an all DHT tube rectified transformer coupled pre-amp ?

This is a very complex question with a myriad of complex answers, but is very interesting so lets dive in .

I think the key word here is EMOTION, ie the feeling we get that we're connected to the music and the musicians and participating in the joy of the performance.

Its quite different from the "hi-fi" experience which often becomes quite critical and even non-satisfactory sometimes.

To achieve this emotion does take a very good preamp, which I will go into, but primarily it means a synergy of the whole system , which must be very carefully tuned to be above all things REALISTIC.

To get emotion, we must be coerced into thinking we are listening to an actual performance , voices must sound real and personal, our system has to fool us into thinking we are listening to the real thing, or as close as possible.

That doesn't necessarily mean accuracy, although its important. Our perceptions and listening equipment - ears, consciousness are not the same and are not linear, if you have ever seen Fletcher-Munson curves you will see that it makes a mockery of linear flat response 20Hz-20Khz, although it is important to have a standard.

More important than linear frequency response , I think , is dynamics, especially micro-dynamics. This is the source of realism , this is what makes recorded music sound real, when you can hear the whole spectrum.

But don't confuse this with detail, as many do, detail is often just a tilt of the frequency response to brighten the top end , and eventually becomes tiring and un-realistic.

Dynamics are essential, and it is essential that every part of the system can reproduce it, but it will all fail if the final component in the chain- the speaker isn't capable of doing micro and macro dynamics.

I have 4 speaker systems in my factory, they all have strengths and weakness's and I wouldn't call any one of them the "best" - I like all of them and enjoy them all.

There is one speaker though that repeatedly stuns people with its realism and portrayal of "emotion".

Its a high efficiency, (nearly) full range Supravox driver , with field coil magnet, that is used in an open baffle with 15" open baffle bass drivers above and below it , and a RAAL tweeter . Simple 6dB passive crossovers , but a DEQX digital crossover for low bass crossover and some bass room correction.

Seperate tube amps for the Supravox and RAAL, and a SS amp for bass.

The Supravox has dynamics that are astounding . Its not perfectly accurate, but with active operation can be adjusted to be reasonably accurate.

But for realism and "you are there", high efficiency speakers have a real advantage in achieving the dynamic range that is needed, to fool one into thinking "they are there".

Unfortunately, there are many more flawed HE speakers than there are good ones. Some are used full range and have terrible frequency responses that emphasise a particular part of the response and become very tiring to listen to.

People then use "soft" or "warm" SE amps to correct this situation, although it rarely does.

Horns are very efficient, and there are some very good horn systems, although its nearly impossible to remove the coloration of the horn geometry. But the dynamics are there in spades , and for a sense of realism they are remarkable, depending on the level of coloration - some are exceptionally good, many are bad.

Dynamics can be achieved with more conventional moving coil speakers, but it usually means multiple drivers and very powerful amplifiers.
Multiple drivers means multiple crossovers, usually in the worst frequency ranges, and complexity harms dynamics.

Not to say that these systems can't sound very good, they certainly can, but its not easy or inexpensive to build them.

However we do it, we need full scale dynamics from our systems for realism.

We won't get it with "warmth" or "romantics" or tilted frequency responses .

No lets get back to the original question:


What is your experience for the most liquidity and presence of midrange and emotion, if not an all DHT tube rectified transformer coupled pre-amp ?

What does liquidity and presence mean ? The hifi reviewers will come up with all sorts of lovely words, but for me, realism is just fine.

Not warmth , or musical, or syrupy, or all the other descriptions that really describe a lack of dynamics .

There are plenty of old style tube preamps around that sound like this , simply because they don't do dynamics well.

For example , low gain triode stages AC or DC coupled to a cathode follower buffer, no dynamics and boring as hell.

To achieve startling dynamics a tube preamp must have gain , and the more gain, the more dynamic it becomes, up to a point of course, but in virtually every situation, a high gain preamp will sound more realistic.

When I made the first commercially available 300B preamp, it had a 6SN7 triode as a driver tube, to get the gain it needed to be dynamic. Without the 6SN7 it was just another "nice" sounding preamp.

All the DHT preamps I built using 300B, 45, PX4, 101D ,4P1L etc had a 6SN7 driver stage to get the gain needed for a dynamic sound with a wide soundstage and precise imaging.

They also were used with output transformers to limit the gain to manageable levels and provide low output impedance and powerful drive ability. 6 solid state power amps in an active system? No problem!

DHT tubes aren't perfect though, and when combined with high gain designs can be problematic in regards to microphonics and noise.

And although DHT designs can produce perfect frequency response and square waves, I do feel that some dynamics is lost through the direct heater connection of a DHT tube.

So to turn the question around to:


What is your experience for the most REALISM , if not an all DHT tube rectified transformer coupled pre-amp ?

I would say my choice would now be a high gain non-dht 6SN7 design with transformer coupling , or perhaps a 6SN7 driver with a 6N6/6H30 White Follower.

If you have an different interpretation of "liquidity and presence of midrange and emotion" and think it should mean warmth or some other form of coloration then yes , a DHT preamp should suit you fine, at the expense of some micro-dynamics.

Again, it all comes down to the synergy of the entire system, perhaps with a bright HE speaker, a DHT preamp would be the best solution , or if "warmth or romantics" is something you value then again a DHT preamp should suit.

There's really no right or wrong, its a journey to find whatever ultimately helps you enjoy the music.

After 30 years of building preamps and using just about every available triode tube, for me the 6SN7 and its equivalents are still "king" of the preamp tubes. "

quoted from:
http://supratekaudio.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2018-12-12T16:18:00+08:00&max-results=50

 

Please absolutely no commercial interest here: only a happy user of Preamp Cortese for over 15 years ...

Monday, April 9, 2018
What is your experience for the most liquidity and presence of midrange and emotion, if not an all DHT tube rectified transformer coupled pre-amp ?

I was asked this question:


What is your experience for the most liquidity and presence of midrange and emotion, if not an all DHT tube rectified transformer coupled pre-amp ?

This is a very complex question with a myriad of complex answers, but is very interesting so lets dive in .

I think the key word here is EMOTION, ie the feeling we get that we're connected to the music and the musicians and participating in the joy of the performance.

Its quite different from the "hi-fi" experience which often becomes quite critical and even non-satisfactory sometimes.

To achieve this emotion does take a very good preamp, which I will go into, but primarily it means a synergy of the whole system , which must be very carefully tuned to be above all things REALISTIC.

To get emotion, we must be coerced into thinking we are listening to an actual performance , voices must sound real and personal, our system has to fool us into thinking we are listening to the real thing, or as close as possible.

That doesn't necessarily mean accuracy, although its important. Our perceptions and listening equipment - ears, consciousness are not the same and are not linear, if you have ever seen Fletcher-Munson curves you will see that it makes a mockery of linear flat response 20Hz-20Khz, although it is important to have a standard.

More important than linear frequency response , I think , is dynamics, especially micro-dynamics. This is the source of realism , this is what makes recorded music sound real, when you can hear the whole spectrum.

But don't confuse this with detail, as many do, detail is often just a tilt of the frequency response to brighten the top end , and eventually becomes tiring and un-realistic.

Dynamics are essential, and it is essential that every part of the system can reproduce it, but it will all fail if the final component in the chain- the speaker isn't capable of doing micro and macro dynamics.

I have 4 speaker systems in my factory, they all have strengths and weakness's and I wouldn't call any one of them the "best" - I like all of them and enjoy them all.

There is one speaker though that repeatedly stuns people with its realism and portrayal of "emotion".

Its a high efficiency, (nearly) full range Supravox driver , with field coil magnet, that is used in an open baffle with 15" open baffle bass drivers above and below it , and a RAAL tweeter . Simple 6dB passive crossovers , but a DEQX digital crossover for low bass crossover and some bass room correction.

Seperate tube amps for the Supravox and RAAL, and a SS amp for bass.

The Supravox has dynamics that are astounding . Its not perfectly accurate, but with active operation can be adjusted to be reasonably accurate.

But for realism and "you are there", high efficiency speakers have a real advantage in achieving the dynamic range that is needed, to fool one into thinking "they are there".

Unfortunately, there are many more flawed HE speakers than there are good ones. Some are used full range and have terrible frequency responses that emphasise a particular part of the response and become very tiring to listen to.

People then use "soft" or "warm" SE amps to correct this situation, although it rarely does.

Horns are very efficient, and there are some very good horn systems, although its nearly impossible to remove the coloration of the horn geometry. But the dynamics are there in spades , and for a sense of realism they are remarkable, depending on the level of coloration - some are exceptionally good, many are bad.

Dynamics can be achieved with more conventional moving coil speakers, but it usually means multiple drivers and very powerful amplifiers.
Multiple drivers means multiple crossovers, usually in the worst frequency ranges, and complexity harms dynamics.

Not to say that these systems can't sound very good, they certainly can, but its not easy or inexpensive to build them.

However we do it, we need full scale dynamics from our systems for realism.

We won't get it with "warmth" or "romantics" or tilted frequency responses .

No lets get back to the original question:


What is your experience for the most liquidity and presence of midrange and emotion, if not an all DHT tube rectified transformer coupled pre-amp ?

What does liquidity and presence mean ? The hifi reviewers will come up with all sorts of lovely words, but for me, realism is just fine.

Not warmth , or musical, or syrupy, or all the other descriptions that really describe a lack of dynamics .

There are plenty of old style tube preamps around that sound like this , simply because they don't do dynamics well.

For example , low gain triode stages AC or DC coupled to a cathode follower buffer, no dynamics and boring as hell.

To achieve startling dynamics a tube preamp must have gain , and the more gain, the more dynamic it becomes, up to a point of course, but in virtually every situation, a high gain preamp will sound more realistic.

When I made the first commercially available 300B preamp, it had a 6SN7 triode as a driver tube, to get the gain it needed to be dynamic. Without the 6SN7 it was just another "nice" sounding preamp.

All the DHT preamps I built using 300B, 45, PX4, 101D ,4P1L etc had a 6SN7 driver stage to get the gain needed for a dynamic sound with a wide soundstage and precise imaging.

They also were used with output transformers to limit the gain to manageable levels and provide low output impedance and powerful drive ability. 6 solid state power amps in an active system? No problem!

DHT tubes aren't perfect though, and when combined with high gain designs can be problematic in regards to microphonics and noise.

And although DHT designs can produce perfect frequency response and square waves, I do feel that some dynamics is lost through the direct heater connection of a DHT tube.

So to turn the question around to:


What is your experience for the most REALISM , if not an all DHT tube rectified transformer coupled pre-amp ?

I would say my choice would now be a high gain non-dht 6SN7 design with transformer coupling , or perhaps a 6SN7 driver with a 6N6/6H30 White Follower.

If you have an different interpretation of "liquidity and presence of midrange and emotion" and think it should mean warmth or some other form of coloration then yes , a DHT preamp should suit you fine, at the expense of some micro-dynamics.

Again, it all comes down to the synergy of the entire system, perhaps with a bright HE speaker, a DHT preamp would be the best solution , or if "warmth or romantics" is something you value then again a DHT preamp should suit.

There's really no right or wrong, its a journey to find whatever ultimately helps you enjoy the music.

After 30 years of building preamps and using just about every available triode tube, for me the 6SN7 and its equivalents are still "king" of the preamp tubes. "

quoted from:
http://supratekaudio.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2018-12-12T16:18:00+08:00&max-results=50

I agree with a lot, but redefining detail as up-tilted frequency response is a bit of a stretch! We can't just redefine things to mean whatever is convenient, it makes things too confusing.

As far as 6SN7 tube pres... I'd agree to a point, especially with a white-follower buffered output. The amplification stage can also be designed similar to a white follower, check out Broski's Aikido design. This uses a triode as a load for the amplifying triode, which cancels out distortions and reduces the characteristic sound of a particular tube, making the preamp more neutral sounding. It's error correction without feedback.

IMO, using 6SN7 or 6SL7 for the gain stage depending on how much gain you need followed by a 6SN7 buffered output using the Aikido design works very well and so far is both the best preamp as well as the best triode driver for a SET amp I've ever used. I use an Aikido buffer as a 0-gain preamp followed by a driver section using 6SL7 > 6SN7 and then a EL34 power amp with it's own tube-rectified power supply in it's own chassis.

 

It might not be as black and white as that.

I happen to have quite a few acquaintances that are music teachers/performers, instrument makers etc. If they comment about audio at all, it's almost always that they're perfectly Ok with something mundane, never audio is unsatisfying. There are however a few that are very curious about or even into higher level audio. Story: Somebody told a violin maker friend that one of his creation sounds like a Guarneri del Gesù. So he came to my place to compare a couple of recordings of that one against the recordings of Guarneri and Strads in the Bein & Fushi book Miracle Makers that I happen to have. We ended up listening to so much more other stuff that his wife had to drag him out of the house. I suppose she really found audio unsatisfactory...

As for F1 drivers driving normal cars slowly, I don't know anybody at that level. But among the car people I hang out with, there are some very hardcore track guys. My humble observation is that a tell tale sign of driver of great skill is smoothness regardless of speed. At the end of the day, it's this smoothness that allows one of push hard against the limit with great confidence. Good drivers are in control at all times, anywhere and in any kind of car. So it should be possible to pick out the good ones in slow and mundane settings, if one knows what to look for. Same should apply to picking out the really good audio gear in any context. But, are we confident that we really know what we should be looking for?

Now I'm no expert, so I could well be totally wrong of course...

The driving analogy is based on a interviews with Damon hill and Lewis Hamilton in particular who say road cars are so far removed from racing cars - and having raced at such a level - nothing on the road comes close. It’s the same as live Vs recorded. Yes we get many systems closer to an original recording but amongst the musicians and people in that industry I know - they are usually satisfied with mediocre to average music systems and kind of shrug their shoulders at mine saying it’s much better than average - then say it won’t make them shell out and they are happy with what they’ve got. They tend to look for different things and aspects or just enjoy what they hear and accept the limitations. I speaking from my own experience and I’m not claiming any ipso facto knowledge - and this is a forum for banter at the end of the day

 

Indeed, Al - it does grow tiresome, and not just here. While not all gear is equal, I'll go so far as to arrogate that failing to grasp the difference between "the best audio system" and "the best audio system for me" suggests inexperience.

Agreed. Recently I auditioned a system that was multiple times as expensive as mine, and in several ways clearly superior to mine. On the scale of 'hi-fi' attributes it scored really high, such that objectively it was easily one of the best systems I have heard. However, it had some shortcomings, also compared to mine, that simply would never make it "the best system for me", even if I could afford it (and the large room that went with it).

All systems, even the most expensive ones, are inherently a compromise. The trick is to find the compromise that you personally can best live with, because it aligns best with your own priorities and preferences. And while they may find many things to admire about the system, that compromise may be unsatisfactory to someone else. Even if, and if you can afford it, it represents "the best system".

By the way, the fact that each system is a compromise is proven already by something as mundane (yet important) as speaker set-up: inherently a compromise.

 

IMO, using 6SN7 or 6SL7 for the gain stage depending on how much gain you need followed by a 6SN7 buffered output using the Aikido design works very well and so far is both the best preamp as well as the best triode driver for a SET amp I've ever used. I use an Aikido buffer as a 0-gain preamp followed by a driver section using 6SL7 > 6SN7 and then a EL34 power amp with it's own tube-rectified power supply in it's own chassis.

I certainly agree with your tube selection and my Aikido based pre-amp has been the go-to pre-amp when the Pacific Northwest Audio Society (Seattle area) is hosting the "Sound DIY Club's Summer DIY Fest"!

 

All systems, even the most expensive ones, are inherently a compromise. The trick is to find the compromise that you personally can best live with, because it aligns best with your own priorities and preferences. And while they may find many things to admire about the system, that compromise may be unsatisfactory to someone else. Even if, and if you can afford it, it represents "the best system".

Good points, Al.

It was probably boredom that led me to read a five year old "Vivid vs Magico vs Wilson" thread on another forum. As inane as it was long, going back and forth about this compromise and that, aluminum vs composite cabinets. I couldn't help asking myself where does this stand with regard to emotional involvement with music? Without much consideration it strikes me that if a system doesn't help you get there, that's the ultimate compromise. It would seem a very individual thing, not something to resolve between parties.

Although I like to think my ears are more discerning than the vocabularly I have to describe what I hear, sometimes I wonder if audio forums - which are pretty much all talk - make us too picky, too analytical.

 

Quite by accident or at least youtube's whacky algorithms, guess what popped up on recommended videos for me?

Home driving simulators being set up in F1 driver's homes. One very young gentleman (these pilots are YOUNG!) set to drive for McLaren next year was really funny. Turns out the computers and the hydraulic systems for the force feedback systems tripped his breaker more than once LOL Sainz his teammate was featured in another video with his rig being installed. He was bribing his teammate with Pizza to come over and help him calibrate his system. Ah we are all boys at heart

 

The driving analogy is based on a interviews with Damon hill and Lewis Hamilton in particular who say road cars are so far removed from racing cars - and having raced at such a level - nothing on the road comes close.

Well, it probably isn't as black and white as that There are vastly different levels of road cars, and vastly different levels of races cars. In fact, some road cars can live both in the streets and on the track. At the end of the day, the most important thing is the frame of mind of the person behind wheel. Highly skilled drivers might be driving slowly in the streets, but what they're actually doing is nothing like Joe Blow off the street. Perhaps this clip from the movie Rush would illustrate the point:

By the way, the prop car in the movie is a Lancia 2000 sedan. That's nowhere near a Lanica rally car.

It’s the same as live Vs recorded. [...]

Yes, but musicians probably aren't listening like Joe Audiophile either...

[...] Home driving simulators being set up in F1 driver's homes. One very young gentleman (these pilots are YOUNG!) set to drive for McLaren next year was really funny. Turns out the computers and the hydraulic systems for the force feedback systems tripped his breaker more than once LOL [...]

Hydaulics? At this level, the steering wheel pretty much has to be direct drive. And those Cool Performance platforms don't look like a motion rig... But, there are YouTube videos showing Lando Norris churning out blistering times with Logitech G920 steering wheel and pedals. So $250CAD can get you down the road a very long way. Things are mostly in the head you know

 

Quite by accident or at least youtube's whacky algorithms, guess what popped up on recommended videos for me?

Home driving simulators being set up in F1 driver's homes. One very young gentleman (these pilots are YOUNG!) set to drive for McLaren next year was really funny. Turns out the computers and the hydraulic systems for the force feedback systems tripped his breaker more than once LOL Sainz his teammate was featured in another video with his rig being installed. He was bribing his teammate with Pizza to come over and help him calibrate his system. Ah we are all boys at heart

I'm about to get into that... maybe not with such complex and expensive simulators, but I have a new desktop with a high end GPU and superwide monitor. I can see a lot of advantage to driving a course in sim before you get there in your car! I'm also going to make YT vids on audio.

 

It might not be as black and white as that.

I happen to have quite a few acquaintances that are music teachers/performers, instrument makers etc. If they comment about audio at all, it's almost always that they're perfectly Ok with something mundane, never audio is unsatisfying. There are however a few that are very curious about or even into higher level audio. Story: Somebody told a violin maker friend that one of his creation sounds like a Guarneri del Gesù. So he came to my place to compare a couple of recordings of that one against the recordings of Guarneri and Strads in the Bein & Fushi book Miracle Makers that I happen to have. We ended up listening to so much more other stuff that his wife had to drag him out of the house. I suppose she really found audio unsatisfactory...

As for F1 drivers driving normal cars slowly, I don't know anybody at that level. But among the car people I hang out with, there are some very hardcore track guys. My humble observation is that a tell tale sign of driver of great skill is smoothness regardless of speed. At the end of the day, it's this smoothness that allows one of push hard against the limit with great confidence. Good drivers are in control at all times, anywhere and in any kind of car. So it should be possible to pick out the good ones in slow and mundane settings, if one knows what to look for. Same should apply to picking out the really good audio gear in any context. But, are we confident that we really know what we should be looking for?

Now I'm no expert, so I could well be totally wrong of course...

Being a musician in past lives, many other musicians often listen in much different ways than a typical person. They aren't necessarily listening for overall enjoyment of the piece and often cue-in on whatever part it is they are interested in or are performing. I find many don't listen to music casually and don't care that much about the overall quality of the system they listen on. It honestly seems odd to me that musicians are rarely as enthusiastic about simply listening to music for enjoyment as many other people. However, some are.

 

Being a musician in past lives, many other musicians often listen in much different ways than a typical person. They aren't necessarily listening for overall enjoyment of the piece and often cue-in on whatever part it is they are interested in or are performing. I find many don't listen to music casually and don't care that much about the overall quality of the system they listen on. It honestly seems odd to me that musicians are rarely as enthusiastic about simply listening to music for enjoyment as many other people. However, some are.

As ever Dave C got my exact point
We can go around in circles but live is so far removed from a recording it is shocking.
Music engineers I know and have spoken to is that their aim tends to be get the listener to hear what they have created - therefore high fidelity to the recording - but that is rarely the same as live music. Even live recordings get a lot of work done on them to recreate a performance.
Theory and practice don't tend to coincide with the vast majority of audio recordings.
I am no musician and as such I just want to hear and enjoy music - I'm not using a system as a tool like a musician - likewise I don't have that 'hands-on' live experience that musicians and people in recording studios get. I've done single seat racing and a lot of track time and that's just ,miles away from day to day driving on any road - the only road legal car that really gets close is a 'Radical' and that is only just road legal - hence the analogy - if you don't appreciate the analogy @accwai then my analogy must prove of little use to you

 

What's important is its ability to connect me to the music. This may be controversial - but high-end audio - is just boys jewellery - people saying otherwise are kidding themselves. If you just care about listening to music it can be done with a cheap streamer and a very basic system far below even £500.

Yes, it can be done. But other than for simple music, it can be a rather bare bone experience compared to a great stereo. You can get so much more insight into and expressivity of the music with the latter.

Insight into complex orchestra scores, for example. Yesterday I listened to Song of the Nightingale (1917) by Stravinsky on the phenomenally transparent recording with Dorati/London Symphony on Mercury Living Presence, and you just could hear so much of the music and better appreciate the genius of the composer. Recently I listened with a friend, and the reproduction on my system made us really want to explore the score, to understand what complex instrument combinations contributed to all those intricate textures that were nicely laid out. You don't get this from a £500 stereo.

Also yesterday I listened on my system to Freddie Hubbard playing "Blue Moon" with Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers. The dynamic surges and different transient shadings in the playing gave so much expressivity, which is lost to a great extent upon lower quality reproduction with squashed dynamics and transient response, like here:

You could almost say it becomes a different piece of music upon great reproduction, and far more exciting.

The reproduction on my system of Rachel Barton Pine playing Bach's Third Violin Sonata also had subtle nuances of expression that made the music come alive, and established her interpretation as what is uniquely her. You don't get this from a £500 stereo either.

So just "boys' jewellery"? I don't think so. A more intense, more involving music experience? You bet.

 

Being a musician in past lives, many other musicians often listen in much different ways than a typical person. They aren't necessarily listening for overall enjoyment of the piece and often cue-in on whatever part it is they are interested in or are performing.

Okay, I can relate to that. And, when it comes to sound, most musicians do have ears for sound.

 

Yes, it can be done. But other than for simple music, it can be a rather bare bone experience compared to a great stereo. You can get so much more insight into and expressivity of the music with the latter.

Insight into complex orchestra scores, for example. Yesterday I listened to Song of the Nightingale (1917) by Stravinsky on the phenomenally transparent recording with Dorati/London Symphony on Mercury Living Presence, and you just could hear so much of the music and better appreciate the genius of the composer. Recently I listened with a friend, and the reproduction on my system made us really want to explore the score, to understand what complex instrument combinations contributed to all those intricate textures that were nicely laid out. You don't get this from a £500 stereo.


=================================================================

from : http://www.high-endaudio.com/SR-DIVINITY.html

This one below ranks among the best. ​

​

***********SPECIAL AWARD*********** ​

***********MOST "EXPLOSIVE" ORCHESTRAL LP***********

STRAVINSKY-THE FIREBIRD-DORATI-MERCURY SR90226 (CLASSIC REISSUE)​

This is the finest record to ever originate from Mercury and one of the greatest records of all time. It is a contender for the title (and award) of "finest orchestral LP" and its dynamic qualities are even comparable to The Rite of Spring/Mobile (see "The Demi-Gods" below).​

I can't hold back my excitement with this record. It has been years since I have been so impressed and mesmerized. I can actually say that if the "original" Mercurys sounded like this Classic Firebird (they absolutely don't), those records may actually be worth the hundreds of dollars that audiophiles have (foolishly) spent on them. From my skeptical and frugal perspective, I can't be more complimentary than that.​

The Sonics​

This LP has the usual Mercury strengths; a huge soundstage, with real depth and excellent focus, plus superb transparency and deep, tight bass, but there is much more. This time there is real "liquidity" and low-level detail. There is actual "presence and immediacy", totally unlike the two disappointing Mercurys discussed elsewhere.​

The sounds, and the music, don't "dry up and die" at soft levels. There is superb retrieval of detail, both inner and outer, and the transients are fast, sharp and clean. Then there are the dynamic qualities, which are totally unprecedented in my experience.​

The only downsides I can hear are the audible tape hiss, which is normal for this label, a slight lack of "refinement" and a bit of a "veil". So it is not quite as immediate as some of the other top LP's.​

I would advise finding a copy, at virtually any price. This is the very rarest type of record, which, when played, actually has the capability to make the listener feel that...​

​

All the years, monetary investments, frustrations and dedicated efforts in audio pursuits were worth it!​

"The Mercury Pressings Dilemma"

​

There are now four different pressings of the Mercury catalog, though only the original pressings are complete. Based on my auditions, this is how they rank in desirability (and I would read the fine details, because this is necessarily somewhat complicated):

1. Classic Records Reissues (both 33 and 45 RPM)- These are, by far, the best sounding Mercury pressings. Unfortunately, only six records were ever released by Classic. Three of them (Ravel, Prokofiev and Stravinsky) are among the very finest sounding records ever made by anyone. Every audiophile (with a turntable) should have these "big three".

2. Golden Imports (including the Canadian "Golden Series")- These are not in the same league as the Classic Records reissues, but a few of them are excellent. In fact, 6 of them are in The Supreme Recordings, and another 3 are in The Honorable Mentions. There are others that are pretty good, but they also have some problems, mainly from putting too much music on a side (and totally avoid all their "electronically enhanced stereo" LPs, they're awful). Further, and in consequence, the deep bass is rolled-off on many of them. If you find some pressings that match the original's musical selections, without any additions, then they are a safe choice. If not, then...

3. Speakers Corner Reissues- With the exception of the 9 total records mentioned above, which are already in The Supreme Recordings, these are now the best choice for the remainder of the Mercury catalog. They are new, and have sonics that are comparable to the best of the Golden Imports. They should be noticeably superior to those many Golden Imports with extra music. They also have the original covers etc. Hopefully, they will come out with all of the most in-demand Mercury recordings, including the rarities. I'm still hoping that this particular reissue is atypical, and their other Mercury reissues have superior results.

4. Original "Living Presence"- These are desirable only for serious "collectors of original pressings", who will want them regardless of their actual sound (which they almost always overestimate), and, of course, for all those music lovers looking for the Mercury recordings that were never reissued by anyone."

​

==============================================================​

Other thoughts: source: http://www.high-endaudio.com/SR-DEMI.html#Lrg​

​

STRAVINSKY-SONG OF THE NIGHTINGALE/REINER-RCA LSC-2150 (CLASSIC REISSUE)​

"This is a very famous record, mainly because of what is on Side One: Prokofiev's Lieutenant Kije. This is also one of the early Classic reissues, which are not supposed to be all that good. This LP contradicts all that "conventional wisdom": Because it is The Nightingale that has the exceptional sonics, not Lt. Kije. In fact, The Nightingale's sound is stupendous. It is better than any other RCA Classical recording I've yet heard! In fact, it doesn't even sound like any other RCA I've heard.
This one of those very rare LPs which is so "immediate" and "alive" sounding, plus so neutral, that you are totally disarmed when listening to it. It is simply breathtaking, with enormous inner detail and excellent dynamic qualities. That, of course, puts it among the best of all the labels and somewhere near the very top of the list. It does have one noticeable problem though, within a couple of short passages of massed violins, the sound becomes unnaturally "hard". This keeps it from the very top.

There was even a 45 RPM version to consider, which was on 4 sides and had a premium price. I wish I could find a copy of it. The Chesky reissue was almost as good and the original RCA Shaded Dog is also special, but I haven't heard a good copy for some time.

 

Yes, it can be done. But other than for simple music, it can be a rather bare bone experience compared to a great stereo. You can get so much more insight into and expressivity of the music with the latter.

Also yesterday I listened on my system to Freddie Hubbard playing "Blue Moon" with Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers. The dynamic surges and different transient shadings in the playing gave so much expressivity, which is lost to a great extent upon lower quality reproduction with squashed dynamics and transient response, like here:

So just "boys' jewellery"? I don't think so. A more intense, more involving music experience? You bet.

=============================================================
After "explosive"... ART Blakey, please, light a cigar & open a XO cognac to hear ballads "in your room" ( guaranteed...) from this one ( LP) :

Previously pressed on white color vinyl for Record Store Day 2016, Ben Webster's Gone With The Wind is now widely available on 180gram black vinyl.

Ben Webster's Gone With The Wind is a truly incredible performance that has been under-appreciated throughout the years, in part because it hadn't been pressed on vinyl in nearly three decades. The performance took place at the legendary Montmartre Jazzhus in Copenhagen in January of 1965, right in the prime of Webster's long European period."
Selections
Side A:

1. Perdido
2. Yesterdays
3. I'm Gonna Sit Right Down And Write Myself A Letter
4. Sunday

Side B:

1. That's All
2. Gone With The Wind
3. Over The Rainbow
4. Misty