Real vs Hi-FI

[TheDecameron]

I like to feel my sternum flapping, you know- like some form of unsolicited CPR.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Starting points of different journeys.

A debate about hi-fi assumes that transparency is the aim, that assumption is a starting point and how to further the aim is the journey, because we really aren't there yet.

I don't actually think we're that far apart.

Like you, I don't think we're yet at the stage where we can take transparency as a given. My point, in general terms, is that I want my hifi system to move me in the same way that live music moves me. If it doesn't, and assuming the recording isn't duff, then the system is below par.

You may define that as a lack of sufficient transparency, if you like. Many on here would argue that, if certain parameters are within certain limits, then the transparency is adequate. That's the bit I disagree with. If the system isn't giving me goose bumps, then something is missing, ergo, lack of transparency. But the pursuit of the numbers mightn't achieve it all by itself. If I get the goose bumps from a unit with marginally worse numbers, but the better-measuring one leaves me cold, that suggests to me that somebody is measuring the wrong numbers.

It's that psychoacoustic thing, again. Nobody knows for sure what numbers are relevant, in creating and sustaining the illusion of live music in the human brain. So we pursue transparency as the best guess. As you say, we really aren't there yet, despite achieving what, some would say, are pretty ideal sets of measurements.

 

[Julf]

If the system isn't giving me goose bumps, then something is missing, ergo, lack of transparency. But the pursuit of the numbers mightn't achieve it all by itself. If I get the goose bumps from a unit with marginally worse numbers, but the better-measuring one leaves me cold, that suggests to me that somebody is measuring the wrong numbers.

It's that psychoacoustic thing, again. Nobody knows for sure what numbers are relevant, in creating and sustaining the illusion of live music in the human brain. So we pursue transparency as the best guess. As you say, we really aren't there yet, despite achieving what, some would say, are pretty ideal sets of measurements.

And my point (that you probably will consider sarcasm) is that I can get goose bumps from listening to some of the 70's and 80's stuff on an old crappy Sony Walkman. The goose bumps have absolutely nothing to do with transparency, and everything to do with the stuff between my ears.

So, do we want to achieve maximum transparency, or maximum emotional impact? The problem with the latter is that there is no universal "gold standard" - it varies from person to person (and day to day).

 

[Chefren]

I agree with the first part, but I don't see what the second part has to do with it. The reasons a hifi system doesn't sound like the "real thing" are mostly related to the limitations of two loudspeakers and your room acoustics, and have nothing to do with " 20-20,000 Hz with minimal distortion".

I would imagine that a solo instrument of reasonably small size (say a voice, a flute or a guitar) successfully close-miked should be reproducable by a single monophonic speaker?

Your room acoustics in this case shouln't be an issue for reproduction since the result should resemble that of the same instrument being played in your room from the spot the speaker is positioned?

Discuss

 

[Werner]

So, do we want to achieve maximum transparency, or maximum emotional impact? The problem with the latter is that there is no universal "gold standard" - it varies from person to person (and day to day).

And the problem with the former is that, regarded over the broad range of recording techniques, actual recordings, systems, loudspeakers, and actual domestic listening rooms, "maximum transparancy" fundamentally is bloody non-transparent as long as we are confined to two channels, and impossible to quantify.

So we have on one side an unattainable goal, without suitable metrics, and on the other side the desire to maximise subjective pleasure.

Two rabbit holes. Pick your choice.

 

[Werner]

I would imagine that a solo instrument ... close-miked should be reproducable by a single monophonic speaker?
Discuss

Yes, doing so is the same as building an instrument simulator.

It is quite possible, and also quite utterly irrelevant to the task at hand.

 

[S-Man]

You mean my "I assume you have invested in an equalizer and a reverb unit?" question? It was actually a real question, taking what I thought you were saying to a logical conclusion. My apologies if I have offended you, but I think we also do have to allow for the fact that not everyone here is using their first language (it is my third out of five), and different cultures have different ways to communicate - I currently live in a culture where calling a spade a spade and speaking your mind very directly is the norm. That might seem rude to someone coming from a different culture - especially anglo-saxon culture tends to be very conflict-averse.

I wish my use of my 1st language was as good as your use of your 3rd.
I congratulate you on your impeccable spelling and grammar. I am also amazed that your turn of phrase is so like an anglo-saxon's.
I would be very interested to know where you are from and which languages you speak.

 

[Chefren]

It's not irrelevant since if that succeeds then we have the building blocks of a successful reproduction of a live event:

#1 We can record the instruments well enough.
#2 We have managed to move the recorded sound to the consumer via a media that doesn't destroy the sound recorded in #1 (pretty much a given since at least HD formats).
#3 It is possible to build a sound reproduction system to replay this recording in a convincing manner meaning good enough speakers etc. are available.

What parts are we missing then? Instead of listening to your own room acoustics you want the venue acoustics of course. So to do this, we need to get rid of (most of) the room acoustics somehow - is this achievable in a domestic environment at all?

Then if stereo doesn't correctly replay the recording - do we have any surround sound setups that can? Meaning would the best possible 7.1 or similar setup do or are we still far away from that? If no, what would be required to do this successfully?

Finally to get back to point #3; obviously there are some instruments that are hard to reproduce right at home, like a big organ. Then again I wonder if anyone would even want them reproduced at home like they would be live, at the same volumes etc?

 

[SteveS1]

The nice things about terms like 'emotion', 'musicality' and the like is that they help someone out when they want to make a case for a preference for something, in the absence of any objective differences to point to.

Under unsighted conditions, these differences do tend to melt away.

I don't think there is anything wrong with making selections based on the look, feel, ownership experience of anything. But it does become amusing when the preferred option is then associated with all these unmeasurable, incomparable features reported by the listener.

Just look at the show thread, here: http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=144500&page=7

A couple of people for whatever reason don't like the idea that the exhibitors were mainly using computer audio.

Given that there is no reason why the digital files should sound better one way or the other (assuming kit is not broken) so no objective flaw is identified. So then, this preference is backed up (let's not dignify it with 'supported') by words like "lacklustre" and "lacking emotion", "no depth" and other unmeasurable or incomparable terms.

Unsighted listening to these same systems being fronted by a disc reader and all else being the same, it would be interesting to see if any differences were established. I would be interested, because I once swapped the sources (underhand I know) while demonstrating a CA source because I sensed a certain prejudice. Nothing more sinister than people being used to paying large sums for a digital music player not really being open to computer audio taking the pain out of that.

Sure enough the perceived faults with the computer front end were suddenly transferred to the rather expensive CDP. Now that's magic.

 

[cliffpatte]

Isn't this akin to comparing a Cinematic Film to a Play. In the context of a play the audience interract with the actors, but in cinema this is missing. The example earlier of Gregson and Collister in a pub - this would make a terrible record or CD because the acoustics of the pub and the noise of the audience would be a distraction. 90% or more of CDs are recorded in some kind of studio optimised for bringing the sound of the voices and instruments into the living room without any distractions from where or when they were recorded.

 

[Werner]

It's not irrelevant since if that succeeds then we have the building blocks of a successful reproduction of a live event.

It is irrelevant really. The second part of your first sentence contains the key to the reason.


If you very precisely can state what the (alleged) requirements are of hifi ('what are we attempting to do'), then, too, you will see the pitfall.

 

[Take5]

I would imagine that a solo instrument of reasonably small size (say a voice, a flute or a guitar) successfully close-miked should be reproducable by a single monophonic speaker?

I dont believe this is possible.

A live acoustic sound, will never be reproduced through a loudspeaker.

A good representation of it, yes. But never sufficient to make you believe that the player was right there in front of you.

 

[Rodney gold]

You can never get the same ambient and spatial cues from a speaker/recording vs someone playing an instrument.
Thats why the notion of "being there" is just an illusion .. you can never REALLY be there if using a hifi.
I have never *heard* a live performance (apart from unamplified classical/orchestral) as being better sonically than my Hifi - emotionally , it's a different story.

 

[S-Man]

The example earlier of Gregson and Collister in a pub - this would make a terrible record or CD because the acoustics of the pub and the noise of the audience would be a distraction.

As I said it's got way too much dynamic range to be a comfortable listen at home. However it is also pretty convincing as a reproduction of an event - turn it up and listen from the kitchen and you could almost believe G&C were playing live next door.

The audience noise is part of the atmosphere and not really any more distracting than most live albums. At one point the glass collector comes round and the clink of glasses sounds startlingly real. There's also a few mistakes and the odd joke (Humans come from Hume apparently!) - all of this adds to the reality effect.

I think we are all generally agreed that recorded music needs some compression and tweaking to get enjoyable results at home.

 

[Julf]

I wish my use of my 1st language was as good as your use of your 3rd.

Thanks!

I congratulate you on your impeccable spelling and grammar. I am also amazed that your turn of phrase is so like an anglo-saxon's.

I guess it comes from being married to an American teacher of English Literature (how's that for conflicting adjectives?).

I would be very interested to know where you are from and which languages you speak.

I was born in Helsinki, Finland to Swedish-speaking parents (5 % officially recognized minority - other Swedish-speaking Finns include Linus Torvalds, but he went to the University of Helsinki and I went to the Technical University, so we only met later). I did English and German in school, but have lost most of my German after moving to Amsterdam 16 years ago - unless you are native in one of them, German and Dutch are a bit too close to each other, so one tends to displace the other.

 

[Julf]

And the problem with the former is that, regarded over the broad range of recording techniques, actual recordings, systems, loudspeakers, and actual domestic listening rooms, "maximum transparancy" fundamentally is bloody non-transparent as long as we are confined to two channels, and impossible to quantify.

Yes and no - the hard parts are the ones where we actually move to real sound waves in the air, so loudspeakers and listening rooms. The rest is more straightforward - how about the old "transmission cable with gain". Don't add anything, don't subtract anything. If we measure what comes out of the mic, recording console or mastering system, and measure what comes out of our power amplifier, the only difference should be gain.

So we have on one side an unattainable goal, without suitable metrics, and on the other side the desire to maximise subjective pleasure.

Two rabbit holes. Pick your choice.

Yes, this is turning into the classic "objective vs subjective" debate that we know will never end. But still...

What if you go to a tube station or bus stop, and ask the young people with headsets on their ears and iDevices in their pockets to let you listen to what they are listening to? What you in most cases will hear is extremely compressed stuff, with boomy bass.

Ask them to try an audiophile player and some really top-end, transparent headphones. They will probably go "what is this crap? No bass, no punch!".

How do I know? Some people I have worked with did just that as part of market research.

Are we to tell they are wrong, and our listening experience is better? They get more emotional pleasure and fulfilment from their "cheap and crappy" systems than they would from a more transparent system.

They would never claim that their systems are "more transparent". "Transparent" is one thing, "pleasant", "emotionally engaging" etc. are another thing. The correlation between the two is not clear.

Some of us prefer to try to reproduce the original material as faithfully as possible, others prefer to have it "sound great". Neither is right or wrong, but let's not be mislead into thinking our subjective preference necessarily translates into "good" or "right". To determine real transparency, we have ABX tests...

 

[S-Man]

Thanks Julf. Respect!
My wife is a French teacher, my daughters are both quite good at French. I am thoroughly mediocre at French and German, I just cannot seem to retain any new vocab.

 

[Julf]

Thanks Julf. Respect!

Thanks! Not sure it is deserved...

My wife is a French teacher, my daughters are both quite good at French. I am thoroughly mediocre at French and German, I just cannot seem to retain any new vocab.

I guess I was just lucky - growing up with two "native" languages does seem to help the brain to develop an ability for multiple languages. I still struggled when learning Dutch, because it was so late in life (I was 36 when I moved here).

It does bode well for your daughters if they learned French early on.

 

[Werner]

Yes and no - the hard parts are the ones where we actually move to real sound waves in the air, so loudspeakers and listening rooms

And the other side: halls, studios, and microphone techniques. These are just as flawed as the replay side, although for entirely different reasons.

Yes, this is turning into the classic "objective vs subjective" debate that we know will never end. But still...

Quite the contrary, I tried to show that the quest for (undefined) 'transparency' is ultimately a wild sheep chase (due to the uncontrolled and fundamentally flawed first and final steps, and due to the lack of appropriate standards). Choosing for that quest is a subjective decision with no more, or less, validity than the personal decisions made by any other active audiophile who just optimises 'pleasure'.

This of course assuming that both upheld a minimum standard of quality.

but let's not be mislead into thinking our subjective preference necessarily translates into "good" or "right". To determine real transparency, we have ABX tests...

Of course not. Where 'transparency' is defined it can be tested and graded. This is to be done by those for whom the result is directly relevant. E.g. manufacturers seeking to build blameless amplifiers or recording/reproduction equipment, or users who want to confine the inherent flaws to certains parts of the signal chain only. But again, outside of pro- or mainstream audio manufacturers these are personal and subjective strategies.

 

[Julf]

And the other side: halls, studios, and microphone techniques. These are just as flawed as the replay side, although for entirely different reasons.

True. Electronics is easy, electro-mechanics and acoustics is hard.

Quite the contrary, I tried to show that the quest for (undefined) 'transparency' is ultimately a wild sheep chase (due to the uncontrolled and fundamentally flawed first and final steps, and due to the lack of appropriate standards).

I agree if we talk about undefined and vague "transparency" as opposed to "accurate reproduction".

Of course not. Where 'transparency' is defined it can be tested and graded. This is to be done by those for whom the result is directly relevant. E.g. manufacturers seeking to build blameless amplifiers or recording/reproduction equipment, or users who want to confine the inherent flaws to certains parts of the signal chain only. But again, outside of pro- or mainstream audio manufacturers these are personal and subjective strategies.

Agree.