It is OK for speakers to have a distinctive sound...

[busb]

Reproducing the original experience of a performance in the home is, for me, what hifi is all about. Those interested in reproducing the file because that is all we have are, imho, completely missing the point, unless they are recording engineers or with pretensions for being a recording engineer. That we all have different preferences for position in a concert hall makes a very good case for speakers to sound different and suitable for our preferred way of listening. My current speakers present a string quartet 2 metres behind the speakers and as if they are giving me a personal recital in my home. Absolutely wonderful. Obviously orchestras are a bit more difficult to accommodate in my room but it is as if the wall behind the speakers opens onto a concert hall. It takes a bit more of a suspension of disbelief but works for me.

I always laugh when someone says: "My system sounds so good - it's as though the band is in my living room!" I want my system to sound good enough that I'm fooled into thinking I'm at the venue! Actually, that's not true, I don't think neither!

I wonder if anyone has put their speakers on rails? I suppose it would be possible to tag recordings & have the speakers be motorised so their positions can be adjusted automatically for orchestral, chamber or even lieder?

 

[Jowcol]

Surely the only sound we can hope to get close to with a Hi-Fi is that of the master recording, be it on tape or a file, that was produced to be replicated for distribution on vinyl, CD or streaming.

We cannot go beyond or further back into the production chain than that master recording.

Whatever the master sounds like , live, studio produced, that’s how it will/should sound when replayed on a Hi-Fi.

If I was present at the recording (of a live acoustic event) I would hope that when I play it back later it has some similarity.
Peter Walker was doing those demos many years ago.

 

[paulfromcamden]

Surely the only sound we can hope to get close to with a Hi-Fi is that of the master recording, be it on tape or a file, that was produced to be replicated for distribution on vinyl, CD or streaming.

We cannot go beyond or further back into the production chain than that master recording.

Whatever the master sounds like , live, studio produced, that’s how it will/should sound when replayed on a Hi-Fi.

To an extent. Except it will have been mixed and mastered on a particular set of speakers (or several sets of different speakers) in a particular room or rooms which may or may not be similar sounding to your speakers and room.

 

[Purité Audio]

That really doesn’t matter all we have is the record, I can only see that being relevant if you were trying to re-create in very general terms the equipment of a particular era.
Keith

 

[nostromo]

I wonder if anyone has put their speakers on rails? I suppose it would be possible to tag recordings & have the speakers be motorised so their positions can be adjusted automatically for orchestral, chamber or even lieder?

A stand with the ability to rotate and tilt would be useful too... Remote controlled of course.

 

[camverton]

Surely the only sound we can hope to get close to with a Hi-Fi is that of the master recording, be it on tape or a file, that was produced to be replicated for distribution on vinyl, CD or streaming.

We cannot go beyond or further back into the production chain than that master recording.

Whatever the master sounds like , live, studio produced, that’s how it will/should sound when replayed on a Hi-Fi.

A perfectly reasonable, albeit pedantic, post. If you ignore the original performance then you are surely imo ignoring the whole point of having a hifi system, which to me at least, is creating an illusion in the home of the original performance of music.

Of course if your choice of music is created in a studio then the master could be construed as the original performance. For those of us listening to acoustic music which is performed in a concert hall then I think it folly to ignore what the original performance sounds like.

Curiously, to my ears, the so called “finest measuring” speakers aren’t that good for recreating the life experience at home, however useful they may be for analysing a recording.

 

[PeteVid]

If I was present at the recording (of a live acoustic event) I would hope that when I play it back later it has some similarity.
Peter Walker was doing those demos many years ago.

If it's recorded well then you should hear a similarity , (everyone has their own take on similarity though). But obviously it's the recording (probably after having been mixed, eq'd , compressed etc, replicated for distribution) that you'll be listening to not the original event

 

[camverton]

That really doesn’t matter all we have is the record, I can only see that being relevant if you were trying to re-create in very general terms the equipment of a particular era.
Keith

So, if you go and listen to a concert at the Wigmore Hall and then listen to the R3 broadcast you don’t reference the original performance? I realise that your incomplete view of the process of recreating music supports your USP as a dealer, and as such can’t really be taken seriously as unbiased in a debate like this.

 

[camverton]

A stand with the ability to rotate and tilt would be useful too... Remote controlled of course.

Funny enough I had thought of doing this when I used Martin Logans which are very critical in terms of tilt and toe in. Not much use for my current speakers which radiate equally in all (horizontal) directions. Ooh, hang on, isn’t that one of the features of a fine measuring speaker!

 

[PeteVid]

To an extent. Except it will have been mixed and mastered on a particular set of speakers (or several sets of different speakers) in a particular room or rooms which may or may not be similar sounding to your speakers and room.

Yes and being mixed and mastered in a particular room on particular speakers is part of the production process involved in creating the master tape or file. So your experience of listening to the distributed version of the master at home won't be identical to the listening experience the producers had. Unless! ..... you were to take your CD (for example) back to the original room where it was mixed and mastered, if it was a full digital production chain to produce the CD, then it should sound the same or at least very close. Taking the vinyl back and playing that, of course it won't sound as close.

 

[John Phillips]

Surely the only sound we can hope to get close to with a Hi-Fi is that of the master recording, be it on tape or a file, that was produced to be replicated for distribution on vinyl, CD or streaming.
...
Whatever the master sounds like , live, studio produced, that’s how it will/should sound when replayed on a Hi-Fi.

I agree this is a fundamental tangible reference for studio-produced audio material. However, experience has shown me that many people enjoy the hobby through goals that do not align with re-creating that reference. Insisting they are wrong to be different does not seen to sit comfortably with either reality or tolerance.

 

[PeteVid]

I agree this is a fundamental tangible reference for studio-produced audio material. However, experience has shown me that many people enjoy the hobby through goals that do not align with re-creating that reference. Insisting they are wrong to be different does not seen to sit comfortably with either reality or tolerance.

Indeed John and yes whatever floats your boat.

 

[paulfromcamden]

Yes and being mixed and mastered in a particular room on particular speakers is part of the production process involved in creating the master tape or file.

I think as ever with this type of thread it become apparent that genre and source material have a very great bearing what people are trying to achieve with their hi-fi.

A classical listener who wishes to recreate something approximating the sound of an ensemble in a particular space may take a somewhat different view to someone who mainly listens to, say, electronica created on a laptop.

I listen to lots of jazz from the 1950/60s. There's often very little room sound and I'm under no illusion that what I'm listening to is a recording. That doesn't worry me. I'm happy to accept that listening to a recording and that listening to a live performance are not quite the same thing.

 

[Jowcol]

IMHO 'high fidelity' was achieved long ago.
Many years ago BBC went to a lot of trouble to design loudspeakers. They were present at the recording, they knew what it all sounded like.

In the past we knew what loudspeakers recording companies used, we could go out and buy those same loudspeakers that the recording was mastered with.

The thing which intrigues me is why this has all gone 'wrong' in the past 35 years, and my explanation is that people no longer listen to live acoustic music and therefore have no reference point.

These hifi arguments are like one person who likes vanilla ice cream telling somebody they shouldn't like chocolate ice cream. It's a pointless discussion. You can like what you want but you can't have an argument about it.

'The closest approach to the original sound'. It's not new.

 

[gustav_errata]

I think it's great that the recording as an artifact, independent of the medium on which it is encoded, has become an art form in and of itself. This has opened up musical avenues that ye olde composers of yore couldn't even dream of. I still enjoy live music, but I therefore view recorded music as a completely different, and distinct experience. Thus, my focus on reproducing a recording is completely different from any sort of notion of "high fidelity". Instead, I seek to produce a new, independent performance of the piece taking place in the venue of my living room. I am not trying to reproduce the experience of sitting in a hall watching performers, but rather I am inviting the artist into my house.

This does make it more challenging to set goals in building a system (more challenging still due to my inexperience and the inability to easily get out there and hear different gear these days). I cannot seek to perfectly reproduce the timbre of the first violinist sneezing, but there is no easy aural benchmark to latch onto. Perhaps that's why so many people cling to measurements for dear life. Yet, there are easily identifiable negative features that one would seek to avoid, such as tinny sound as heard from small bluetooth speakers, room-induced bass boom, strong frequency imbalances, etc. I seek a room filling sound with good stereo separation, no mud, etc, but obviously notions of soundstage etc are less meaningful.

It's an ongoing journey and I've only just started, so I wish I could do more than pontificate about it...

 

[gustav_errata]

These hifi arguments are like one person who likes vanilla ice cream telling somebody they shouldn't like chocolate ice cream. It's a pointless discussion. You can like what you want but you can't have an argument about it.

Sometimes it's fun to discuss things that cannot be resolved.

 

[Frizzy]

My hifi is a reflection of me, I have a ‘perfect sound‘ in my head which I try to emulate in my living room.

I find most designers I’ve spoken to have particular obsessions they feel are the most important, the most successful I feel are those that get one aspect bang on. And these are often more compelling than more evenly balanced products, but as we all now hifi is a construct created in a studio.
Having been lucky enough to hear the same band live in a bedroom, pub, festival, and concert hall. The studio recording bears little resemblance to the other performances, but is a event in and of itself.
The job of speakers imho is to capture the essence of the performance not a produce facsimile.

if you are being really picky you could say that the original musical event changes constantly as it’s quantum signature can never be replicated due to changes in the viewpoint.
Love quantum physics how can you argue a topic only a handful of people understand .

 

[marshanp]

...my explanation is that people no longer listen to live acoustic music and therefore have no reference point...

There is a fairly large number of regular classical concertgoers, most of them past retirement age... but I think the great majority of them have little or no interest in hi-fi.

Why, I just don't know. I'm 64, go to lots of live music and am very happy to have a system which also gives great musical rewards, albeit somewhat different ones. There are many, many recordings of excellent music which will never appear on a concert programme and they are the mainstay of my home listening. Music that I know really well I generally want to hear live; somehow it just doesn't have the same effect, no matter how good the performance, when reproduced over speakers.

...The job of speakers imho is to capture the essence of the performance not [to] produce [a] facsimile...

Yes; I would say that their job is to sound convincing to a listener who knows what the live experience sounds like, which is a pretty similar point of view.

 

[paulfromcamden]

I cannot seek to perfectly reproduce the timbre of the first violinist sneezing

Just as an aside you most likely wouldn't need to. Many modern classical recordings are stitched together from hundreds of takes - either because a plane passed by overhead and was audible, or the producer wasn't convinced by the performance in that bar, or the first violinist sneezed.

I guess you might consider it 'cheating' but I'm in awe at the skill of the musicians who can start perfectly at bar 26 and the editor who can put it together seamlessly to create a convincing performance.

 

[S-Man]

The thing which intrigues me is why this has all gone 'wrong' in the past 35 years, and my explanation is that people no longer listen to live acoustic music and therefore have no reference point.

That's a very interesting point.
Another possible explanation, based on my observations from the Munich Hi-End show, is that manufacturers have gone for "impressive" rather than "accurate".





And in answer to the orignal question; Yes, it's Ok for other people's speakers to have a distinctive sound