|
|
Post by macca on Jan 12, 2019 13:56:05 GMT
Some people seem to take it for granted that a system designed for an even frequency response and low distortion will not be as enjoyable to listen to as one where these things have not been given any consideration. 'Specs and measurements will not tell you how a system will sound' and so forth.
Is this really true? And on what basis is this assumption made? That never seems to be explained although you will get people who say 'I listened to blah blah and it was bland and boring.' But an anecdote is not data.
It also seems to ignore the fact that the people making the recording had the primary goal of making a recording that sounds 'good' to listen to without requiring any additional assistance from the equipment being used to replay it.
Should we not be aiming to get as close to technical perfection as possible with our systems and put our trust in the artists and recording engineers to deliver the emotional goods? Or should we all be using kit that has, in the words of one manufacturer (no not him) been 'designed for emotion'?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2019 15:39:31 GMT
One thing that has consistently struck me, is that simple systems built around high sensitivity speakers just seem more 'musical' (whatever that means) to me, than those using massive amps and huge multi-driver speakers like ATC and PMC and the like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2019 15:42:55 GMT
Just had to edit the foregoing post three times 'cos the beginning kept altering itself for some reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jan 12, 2019 16:14:07 GMT
The system I listen to most at present definitely leans to the accurate side of things. What I will say is, a good recording sounds excellent with all the emotion you want, although it does no favours to poorly recorded material, but they are still listenable. What I don't understand is why we have poor recordings, especially in this day and age, is that down to the recording engineer, artist or simply are they incapable of doing their jobs. If recordings were improved, would that see the end of valves?
|
|
|
|
Post by nonuffin on Jan 12, 2019 16:24:10 GMT
There is and never will be the "perfect" sound because we are all so diverse in our listening preferences and tastes, plus that also applies to the musicians and recording engineers, notwithstanding the quality of the studio equipment and mixing desks, so it will always be pot luck in what music you are served up with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2019 16:30:51 GMT
i gave up with hifi about 15 years ago.
never listened to any of my stuff since then..all i use now is my samsung soundbar and some 50 quid cordless headphones...
i realised after 25 years of box swapping that i will never be happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jan 12, 2019 17:24:43 GMT
The system I listen to most at present definitely leans to the accurate side of things. What I will say is, a good recording sounds excellent with all the emotion you want, although it does no favours to poorly recorded material, but they are still listenable. What I don't understand is why we have poor recordings, especially in this day and age, is that down to the recording engineer, artist or simply are they incapable of doing their jobs. If recordings were improved, would that see the end of valves? I don't worry much about the quality of a recording. The way I see it we get what we are given. Whilst I'd agree there is quite a wide spread in quality terms no professional recordings are so poor as to be unpleasant/unlistenable unless the playback equipment makes them so. I think that maybe people mistake flawed systems for 'accurate' systems and so decide that accurate is no good? |
|
|
|
Post by nonuffin on Jan 12, 2019 19:10:09 GMT
I don't worry much about the quality of a recording. The way I see it we get what we are given. Whilst I'd agree there is quite a wide spread in quality terms no professional recordings are so poor as to be unpleasant/unlistenable unless the playback equipment makes them so. I think that maybe people mistake flawed systems for 'accurate' systems and so decide that accurate is no good? I have yet to have heard any system that isn't flawed in some way or another, so our main task is to find a system with the right blend of flaws that pleases us as individuals. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jan 12, 2019 20:45:02 GMT
By flawed I don't mean not perfect I mean a system has some obvious problem that makes it an unpleasant listen - boomy bass, slow bass, harsh distorted highs, edgy, fatiguing etc etc.
The sort of system where it's a relief when they turn it off.
My point is that people say things like 'This amp makes female vocals sound lush' but why assume it is some quality the amp is imparting? Maybe the vocals were engineered to sound like that and the amp is just letting that through?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2019 22:58:51 GMT
By flawed I don't mean not perfect I mean a system has some obvious problem that makes it an unpleasant listen - boomy bass, slow bass, harsh distorted highs, edgy, fatiguing etc etc. The sort of system where it's a relief when they turn it off. My point is that people say things like 'This amp makes female vocals sound lush' but why assume it is some quality the amp is imparting? Maybe the vocals were engineered to sound like that and the amp is just letting that through? I hate it when some people say stuff like that. Give me a break! S. |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,117
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jan 13, 2019 6:00:07 GMT
My take:
Like an artist’s representation, systems only capture an interpretation of the recorded performance. Most recordings never even stemmed from a sinlgle performace anyway, having been created by laying down tracks and mixing them.
So what is “fidelity”?
Well I think it takes many forms, some of which are more important to each of us. Some may also be more important in terms of enjoyability, whilst some may be more important in creating sense of “realism”. Scale and dynamics may recreate key aspects a genuine live performance, but they don’t necessarily lead to enjoyment. Industrial noise, gunfire etc have these things in spades and are downright unpleasant.
OTOH rhythym, timbre and tone etc can make a performance enjoyable, but do we want them to be accurate or exaggerated/accentuated? Well, again, it comes down to whether you’re seeking a live performance that probably never existed, or whether you’re seeking to suspend disbelief and create a “feel” of being witness to a musical spectacle.
For me it’s easy because I seek only to enjoy and be moved. Van Gogh is my favourite artist and he wasn’t exactly a photo realist. He did, however, capture a vital essence that nobody before or since has gotten close to.
If it was all about seeking a single truth, we’d all have similar kit, I guess. But then we have to remember that we all have uniquely shaped ears and uniquely wired brains. Not to mention unique life experiences which shape our tastes and preferences. Nothing exists without context.
So I say don’t worry about fidelity. The original performance it seeks to recreate likely never existed to start with. The kit you’re using to try and recreate it, won’t get you there in every way and if it did, you’re not a perfect genetic copy of an ideal human with accurately tuned hearing and uniform social programming. Just be yourself, like what you like and accept that for you, that is “fidelity”: being true to what you enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jan 13, 2019 10:16:14 GMT
I agree there is no 'one true way', that's sort of the point I was making. Neither the accurate system or the 'musical' system should be considered as some sort of universal holy grail. Not much point having a system you never use because you don't like how it sounds.
I never used to be aware of any of this and would just try stuff and keep what I liked. At one point I was using Croft amps and my old Akai speakers and a friend dropped round with a copy of his album (recorded in a proper professional studio). So we stuck it on and had a listen and one of his comments was 'It sounds very different to how it does in the studio.'
That got me thinking that perhaps I should try a different approach so I set about building an 'accurate' system instead - solid state amps, modern speakers, all bought on spec alone - which has been an interesting exercise. Compared to my many previous systems the main thing I notice is that the differences in recordings (not so much the quality but the 'tone' or 'character' of them) really became apparent. This was also true of the sounds of the individual instruments, like the tone of different electric bass guitars for example.
Not saying that is the 'one true way' or anything like that. Just suggesting that I don't see why it is not possible to have that 'forensic' insight and 'musicality' too. Is it really the case that you can only have one or the other and not both at the same time?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2019 12:02:39 GMT
By flawed I don't mean not perfect I mean a system has some obvious problem that makes it an unpleasant listen - boomy bass, slow bass, harsh distorted highs, edgy, fatiguing etc etc. I agree macca..... I think ones system is pretty much sorted when one can enjoy extended listening periods without fatigue creeping in. Nowt worse than a system that makes you want too switch off after half an hour........or less. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jan 13, 2019 12:23:17 GMT
By flawed I don't mean not perfect I mean a system has some obvious problem that makes it an unpleasant listen - boomy bass, slow bass, harsh distorted highs, edgy, fatiguing etc etc. I agree macca..... I think ones system is pretty much sorted when one can enjoy extended listening periods without fatigue creeping in. Nowt worse than a system that makes you want too switch off after half an hour........or less. I've had plenty of them. Always know I'm on the right track when it gets late and I have to start thinking about the neighbours. But I just want to listen to one more album! |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,117
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jan 13, 2019 18:24:21 GMT
By flawed I don't mean not perfect I mean a system has some obvious problem that makes it an unpleasant listen - boomy bass, slow bass, harsh distorted highs, edgy, fatiguing etc etc. I agree macca..... I think ones system is pretty much sorted when one can enjoy extended listening periods without fatigue creeping in. Nowt worse than a system that makes you want too switch off after half an hour........or less. Had a few of those a long time ago. You quickly learn what works and what doesn’t |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,117
|
Post by Bigman80 on Jan 13, 2019 18:36:54 GMT
I agree there is no 'one true way', that's sort of the point I was making. Neither the accurate system or the 'musical' system should be considered as some sort of universal holy grail. Not much point having a system you never use because you don't like how it sounds. I never used to be aware of any of this and would just try stuff and keep what I liked. At one point I was using Croft amps and my old Akai speakers and a friend dropped round with a copy of his album (recorded in a proper professional studio). So we stuck it on and had a listen and one of his comments was 'It sounds very different to how it does in the studio.' That got me thinking that perhaps I should try a different approach so I set about building an 'accurate' system instead - solid state amps, modern speakers, all bought on spec alone - which has been an interesting exercise. Compared to my many previous systems the main thing I notice is that the differences in recordings (not so much the quality but the 'tone' or 'character' of them) really became apparent. This was also true of the sounds of the individual instruments, like the tone of different electric bass guitars for example. Not saying that is the 'one true way' or anything like that. Just suggesting that I don't see why it is not possible to have that 'forensic' insight and 'musicality' too. Is it really the case that you can only have one or the other and not both at the same time? I think it’s perfectly possible to have both, although I dont necessarily think everyone will seek a more fully-rounded solution. It will depend on priorities and tastes I guess. In my experience, the bigger the scale and higher the volume/dynamics you seek, the further up the ladder you need to go to succeed. In many (but not all) cases, you will also need a larger room too, as many bigger speakers need space to breathe and aren’t cut out for near field listening. Again, it’s a personal,thing, but I don’t usually like big speakers played loud when I’m sat on top of them in a tiny room. Probably my least enjoyable experience was those big Tannoy abortions my mate had. Placed about 4 feeet apart and playing in a room not much more than 10x10. I’ve had more pleasant dental surgeries but my mate seemingly liked what he heard. |
|
