Can we hear anything, allowed to hear anything, or are you deaf/stupid?

[sq225917]

Any musician will plumb for the system that best highlights their own instrument, that's why bass players like atc50s, why lead guitarists like big jbls, who trumpeters like horn loaded wide banders and why drummers like thinking they're musicians...

 

[pocketkitchen]

It'll never happen but wouldn't it be great if Stereophile magazine, say, arranged for a few well-known musicians with an interest in hi-fi to audition a couple of their own recordings on two state-of-the-art systems - one comprising components boasting impeccable lab test results and the other voiced primarily through listening tests?

Because I love jazz I have in mind pianist Keith Jarrett and bass player Ron Carter (both audiophiles) and, for the 'subjectivist' system (because that's my preference), an Audio Note Level 5 setup.

The musicians' thoughts would make for very interesting reading!

Can't quite go that far, but I did once sit with Teo Macero and listened to some Miles and had a chat with him about the recordings. I think it was Sketches of Spain we listened to. Project turntable, Alchemist amps, can't remember the speakers. He thoroughly enjoyed it and commented that he never listened through decent home gear, just studio monitoring stuff that never sounded very good but did its job. When you've heard Miles and Bird et that close up, that often, I guess hifi is rendered a little obsolete.

 

[tuga]

It'll never happen but wouldn't it be great if Stereophile magazine, say, arranged for a few well-known musicians with an interest in hi-fi to audition a couple of their own recordings on two state-of-the-art systems - one comprising components boasting impeccable lab test results and the other voiced primarily through listening tests?

Because I love jazz I have in mind pianist Keith Jarrett and bass player Ron Carter (both audiophiles) and, for the 'subjectivist' system (because that's my preference), an Audio Note Level 5 setup.

The musicians' thoughts would make for very interesting reading!

Can't quite go that far, but I did once sit with Teo Macero and listened to some Miles and had a chat with him about the recordings. I think it was Sketches of Spain we listened to. Project turntable, Alchemist amps, can't remember the speakers. He thoroughly enjoyed it and commented that he never listened through decent home gear, just studio monitoring stuff that never sounded very good but did its job. When you've heard Miles and Bird et that close up, that often, I guess hifi is rendered a little obsolete.

I agree with @sq225917 that some musicians will probably choose equipment that highlights their instrument.

But there are other issues regarding musicians as critics.
For one they rarely listen to music from a seat in the audience so they're used to the way things sound in the midst of it. A violinist has a completely different exposure to the sound of his own instrument as well as the orchestra and the all than a member of the audience. This is for classical.
For jazz, most music is now amplified so they listen to the drums and perhaps the brass instruments direct sound but mostly they are listening to the ensemble through stage monitors (speakers) and definitely not in stereo.
For rock and pop, they either use stage monitors when playing live or headphones in the studio where they usually play by themselves or the studio monitors if and when they listen to the final production (which is the music really since there wasn't a musical event to speak of most of the time).


So I'd much rather have the opinion of a competent sound engineer than that of a musician. By a light-year.
They're the ones who setup the mics, who know what the feed from those mics sounds like, who work on the mixes, who produce the music.


I've been participating in forums for almost 15 years, British, American, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and I have grounds to suspect that at least some of people who dislike accurate systems either are too accustomed to reproduced sound to recognise or enjoy realism or have never listened to a really accurate system. That is perhaps why these systems are often described as clinical or uninvolving. But I could be mistaken...


Of course one also has to realise that stereo, even at its best, falls short of the real thing so personal preference ultimately plays a decise roll, particularly with speakers where different topologies produce radically different forms of presentation.

 

[pocketkitchen]

Two Macero was the recording engineer at Columbia. He was a successful musician himself but is mainly, unsurprisingly known for his recording work on arguably some of the best ever sounding recordings.

 

[Robby]

The other issue with getting a professional musician (other than probably classical/jazz/acoustic musicians) to critique a system is that many of them have hearing that is damaged. Many of them, at the very least, have tinnitus.

 

[S-Man]

The lowest note on a piano is around 27 Hz, a drum kit around 80 Hz, and a bass around 40 Hz. These are the lowest notes, so for most music, most of the time, most people’s systems should be ok.

IMO it is more important to have low group delay at LF. In general this can be achieved by low order (non-resonant) loudspeakers.

However, it is clear that not everyone hears the effect this has on music reproduction. Many people actually seem to like badly timed and overblown bass!

 

[stevec67]

But there are other issues regarding musicians as critics.
For one they rarely listen to music from a seat in the audience so they're used to the way things sound in the midst of it.

I'm not sure about that. SWMBO is in a couple of orchestras and is a very accomplished amateur viola player. She regularly sits in the audience to hear how others do it. FWIW she prefers my 4 x ESL57s to my pal's state of the art Tannoys in huge wardrobes. Then again she doesn't often listen to Sabbath.

I've been participating in forums for almost 15 years, British, American, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and I have grounds to suspect that at least some of people who dislike accurate systems either are too accustomed to reproduced sound to recognise or enjoy realism or have never listened to a really accurate system. That is perhaps why these systems are often described as clinical or uninvolving. But I could be mistaken...

What's an accurate system? My Quads reproduce stuff like Neil Young sufficiently well that you can imagine he is on a stool in the room. They don't do the same when Springsteen is climbing on the monitors on the Born In The USA tour. My pal's Tannoys do, they put you at the gig, if they don't make you deaf first. But they don't quite put Neil Young or Dylan on a stool just to the left of the fireplace at Steve Towers the way mine does. So what's accurate?

 

[tuga]

IMO it is more important to have low group delay at LF. In general this can be achieved by low order (non-resonant) loudspeakers.

However, it is clear that not everyone hears the effect this has on music reproduction. Many people actually seem to like badly timed and overblown bass!

Neumann has published an informative piece (with graphs!) on the subject:

What is “group delay” and how does it affect sound quality?
In simple terms, group delay is the time it takes for an electrical input signal to become an acoustical output. It is frequency dependant and should ideally be zero seconds at all frequencies, but this is practically impossible.

http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/neum...ing_knowledge_faqs_general-answers_question13

 

[tuga]

I'm not sure about that. SWMBO is in a couple of orchestras and is a very accomplished amateur viola player. She regularly sits in the audience to hear how others do it. FWIW she prefers my 4 x ESL57s to my pal's state of the art Tannoys in huge wardrobes. Then again she doesn't often listen to Sabbath.


What's an accurate system? My Quads reproduce stuff like Neil Young sufficiently well that you can imagine he is on a stool in the room. They don't do the same when Springsteen is climbing on the monitors on the Born In The USA tour. My pal's Tannoys do, they put you at the gig, if they don't make you deaf first. But they don't quite put Neil Young or Dylan on a stool just to the left of the fireplace at Steve Towers the way mine does. So what's accurate?

Accurate is the reproduction of the recorded signal with as little distortion as possible.

One could say that your Quads are more accurate in some aspects but not others such as limited frequency extension at both ends and limited dynamic abilities and notable floor bounce cancelation which can apparently be sorted by raising the speakers (at least with the ESL63s it can):

ESL57

ESL63

 

[tuga]

I'm not sure about that. SWMBO is in a couple of orchestras and is a very accomplished amateur viola player. She regularly sits in the audience to hear how others do it. FWIW she prefers my 4 x ESL57s to my pal's state of the art Tannoys in huge wardrobes. Then again she doesn't often listen to Sabbath.

A woman of good taste.

 

[Whaleblue]

Dimitry, I think this is way too simplistic. Hifi does not exist to reproduce single sine waves. A single tone test can only really tell you if the device is operating as expected. I can imagine a scenario for a more rigorous test:

Instead of a single sine wave, have many sine waves superimposed. Make this your test 'tone'. Measure the distortion. Then vary the amplitude of the individual sine waves very rapidly (milliseconds) and measure the distortion. Then take two different test 'tones' like this and alternate between them very quickly and measure the distortion. Then vary the amplitude while alternating, and measure the distortion again. Then do this for a period of perhaps 30 seconds and see if the distortion varies over time.

Now you're starting to approach what happens in real music. The original test tone won't tell you anything about what the distortion might be for a rapidly varying, highly dynamic signal.

My suspicion is that some equipment measures better on individual test tones, but equipment which measures worse, might actually do better in a more complex scenario like the above, because there may be faster response times, faster recovery from transients, less overhang, less intermodulation. All sorts of things going on in a real signal that don't happen in a test tone.

That's why I suspect some amplifiers which, according to your parameter, are not as 'good' as others, may actually be 'better' at actually reproducing music.

As far as I know, nobody designs or runs tests like this. Until they do, I think we're still working somewhat in the dark.



Quite.

But... A 20KHz tone cycles in 1/20,000 of a second, and a 20hz tone in 1/20th of a second. The idea of varying the amplitude of such a wave (even the 20KHz one) “rapidly (milliseconds)” is therefore somewhat meaningless.

Beyond that, and forgive me for stating what you may already know, note that the overlaid sine waves actually combine to make a hilly landscape of a waveform. A single wave form, not distinct overlaid waveforms.

What does this matter? I’m not entirely sure, but it might help inform ones mental model when it comes to thinking about how things might be measured.

 

[S-Man]

Interesting article tuga. Thanks.

Quote:
"Back to frequency-dependent delay…
The subjective effect of excessive group delay is a “loosening” of the bass or a “less dry” bass quality. Currently there is insufficient psychoacoustic research on the threshold of group delay at low frequencies. One value is known: 2.5 ms at 100 Hz. This happens to be the same as that seen in the KH 310 A and O 410."

I wonder where they got their "known" figure from? It's convenient for them

I can choose the LF rolloff of my speakers and find that lower is always better. (They have a 1st order rolloff characteristic, which has inherently low GD).

 

[S-Man]

Interesting article tuga. Thanks.

Quote:
"Back to frequency-dependent delay…
The subjective effect of excessive group delay is a “loosening” of the bass or a “less dry” bass quality. Currently there is insufficient psychoacoustic research on the threshold of group delay at low frequencies. One value is known: 2.5 ms at 100 Hz. This happens to be the same as that seen in the KH 310 A and O 410."

I wonder where they got their "known" figure from? It's convenient for them

I can choose the LF rolloff of my speakers and find that lower is always better. (They have a 1st order rolloff characteristic, which has inherently low GD).

 

[Tony L]

What's an accurate system? My Quads reproduce stuff like Neil Young sufficiently well that you can imagine he is on a stool in the room. They don't do the same when Springsteen is climbing on the monitors on the Born In The USA tour. My pal's Tannoys do, they put you at the gig, if they don't make you deaf first. But they don't quite put Neil Young or Dylan on a stool just to the left of the fireplace at Steve Towers the way mine does. So what's accurate?

I’d argue that was far more about personal taste and system setup! There is absolutely no law that large Tannoys should be played loud and I bet you Decca’s pair used for mastering all those still reference-grade SXL classical titles never got listened to any louder than my pair!

FWIW I love ESLs and Tannoys and actually view them as far more similar than different. They both have a ‘natural non-hyped’ tonal balance with the Quads bringing more midband clarity, the Tannoys more weight and dynamics, but both still barking up the same tree. They are two of the speakers I could most happily live with. I certainly never view it as a level thing, a single pair of ESL57s driven by Quad IIs go far louder than I would ever need.

 

[John Phillips]

“The “original” sound is a fantasy. You and I weren’t there at the time the music was recorded were we?”

Well, go to the Wigmore Hall, choose a good seat and then listen to a recording of the BBC broadcast of the concert you’ve listened to. It won’t sound the same but what equipment best recreates the sensation you felt when listening at the original concert. I’ll lay odds that the most convincing speakers won’t be “the best measuring speakers I have ever heard” but ones that interact with the room in a way that creates the most convincing illusion of the original sound. They’ll likely also have very good drivers, oh, and sadly be very expensive!

Yes - that seems exactly how I see things. My test for success for a system: does the reproduction remind me of being there (and for emphasis it's not replicate being there).

The BBC does a great job from all of the halls I know. BBC Wigmore hall broadcasts are generally superb system tests. And broadcasts from the Royal Albert Hall are better than any seat I have had in the stalls - possibly more like the experience in mid-arena).

I have evolved a shortlist of defects in equipment (mostly loudspeakers) that, for me, create dissatisfaction by detracting too much from achieving my objective. Now having a system that clears that list, I find very few reasons to be dissatisfied. The system isn't perfect, I am sure, but for me anyway, searching for "better" is not high on my list of priorities.

 

[stevec67]

A woman of good taste.

I don't know about that, she chose me.

As for Quads and floor cancellations, my stacked pair have the upper pair about 3ft off the deck, which must reduce that. What that does to measured response in room, I have no idea, but the Wall Of Quad certainly works.

 

[Rockmeister]

Yes - that seems exactly how I see things. My test for success for a system: does the reproduction remind me of being there (and for emphasis it's not replicate being there).

The BBC does a great job from all of the halls I know. BBC Wigmore hall broadcasts are generally superb system tests. And broadcasts from the Royal Albert Hall are better than any seat I have had in the stalls - possibly more like the experience in mid-arena).

I have evolved a shortlist of defects in equipment (mostly loudspeakers) that, for me, create dissatisfaction by detracting too much from achieving my objective. Now having a system that clears that list, I find very few reasons to be dissatisfied. The system isn't perfect, I am sure, but for me anyway, searching for "better" is not high on my list of priorities.

I'm of a similar mindset, although I get to very few concerts so my view is more general, but I aim to hear whatever bit of the track I want to pick out sounding like it should, and not to be lost in the overall blur of the music. I enjoy finding and locking on to an instrument, or a voice, without the equipment giving it undue emphasis.'Like it should'? Well each of us has sat and heard a woman singing, a violin being played, a drum banged, so you know...like that, given the limitations of the recording. And that bit matters because over analytical equipment not only separates things too much, so the whole suffers from a kind of fragmentation, but also is very unkind to poor recordings, and I own several hundred of these, wooly and compressed sounding discs.

But even tho I had, in my mind, 'arrived' at the point where the kit I own did it as well as possible for most of what I listen to (which is as good as it gets for a single system), I'm still building a pair of Tannoys, because i can.

 

[John Phillips]

Quote:
"Back to frequency-dependent delay…
The subjective effect of excessive group delay is a “loosening” of the bass or a “less dry” bass quality. Currently there is insufficient psychoacoustic research on the threshold of group delay at low frequencies. One value is known: 2.5 ms at 100 Hz. This happens to be the same as that seen in the KH 310 A and O 410."

I wonder where they got their "known" figure from? It's convenient for them

The Neumann article agrees reasonably with an older academic paper on the audibility of group delay I have in my files. The latest paper I am aware of (May 2018) has 1.0ms as the audibility limit over 300 Hz to 1,000 Hz.

 

[clivem2]

Som

I'm of a similar mindset, although I get to very few concerts so my view is more general, but I aim to hear whatever bit of the track I want to pick out sounding like it should, and not to be lost in the overall blur of the music. I enjoy finding and locking on to an instrument, or a voice, without the equipment giving it undue emphasis.'Like it should'? Well each of us has sat and heard a woman singing, a violin being played, a drum banged, so you know...like that, given the limitations of the recording. And that bit matters because over analytical equipment not only separates things too much, so the whole suffers from a kind of fragmentation, but also is very unkind to poor recordings, and I own several hundred of these, wooly and compressed sounding discs.

But even tho I had, in my mind, 'arrived' at the point where the kit I own did it as well as possible for most of what I listen to (which is as good as it gets for a single system), I'm still building a pair of Tannoys, because i can.

Some of this is why I like mono via 2 speakers.

 

[Rockmeister]

yes. One day if flush I might buy a reasonable mono MM for those rare occasions when I play Mono. My mum left me a large collection of 50's and 60's Mono classical recordings, from Decca and the like which I've barely explored.