|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.205.50
In Reply to: RE: How? posted by Analog Scott on November 28, 2016 at 14:24:50
And what auditory cues did you find in HP's system that were missing in others?1. Sense of three dimensional space
I've never heard the walls disappear with an audio system like I have there. You perceive the acoustic boundaries of the recorded space.
2. Profound resolution
Every rhythm in the background is rendered so clearly. Why didn't I ever hear that before?
3. Authority
Sense of ease at any (unamplified music) dynamic level. Utter lack of strain or notion of clipping.
edit: Just reviewed your profile and rediscovered you are a brethren Sound Lab and Audio Research enthusiast. We likely share more than differ. In reading your musical preferences. I find I enjoy much of what you've described, but am not limited to such nor use pop music as a reference. FWIW, however, Madonna's Ray of Light blew me away on Harry's system. Ever found yourself laughing out loud when you hear something so f--ing good? :)
Edits: 11/28/16Follow Ups:
A sense of space and imaging are very interesting subjects in audio IMO especially when we are talking about the illusion of realism in audio. Live music and audio are such fundamentally different experiences. One of the biggest differences between the two is the absense of visual cues in audio. We, as audiophiles, can't forget that how we percieve sound is profoundly affected by visual cues. We evolved using the two in tandum. And visual cues give us far more accurate information on where things are and how far away they are than auditory cues. so, as it goes, most the the imaging we think we hear in live music we actually see. If one were able to take the actual waveform at any live concert and transfer it to our ears in the lsietning room we would almost universally find that sound have very poor imaging and not be loud enough. So the imaging we get for high end audio has to compensate for the lack of visual cues to create an illusion of aural realism. Imaging in audio is far more precise, far more defined and far more palpable in high end audio than in real life. And that is a good thing. It makes for a better aesthetic experience IMO. An inaccuracy that seems like an accuracy.
And visual cues give us far more accurate information on where things are and how far away they are than auditory cues.
Except of course when you're sitting in the orchestra and can't see many performers past the first violins, cellos and bass. All the woodwinds and various brass are back there somewhere.
Imaging in audio is far more precise, far more defined and far more palpable in high end audio than in real life.
Not always, but I agree with the sentiment. You'll note I said nothing at all about "precise imaging". Just observed the ability to render all the instruments clearly in a larger apparent space.
"Not always, but I agree with the sentiment."
I think it's pretty close to always. If you are sitting very close to a small ensemble then the actual sound only imaging get's pretty precise. But other than that most of the percieved precision in real world acoustic music is visual as well as just about any day to day perception of placement. In fact the visual will almost always not just support the audible sense of imaging it will override it. Just think about anytime you go to the movies. We always percieve the sound of the actor's voices to be eminating from the image of their mouths when in fact it is often comming from a speaker that is physically pretty far away from the actors image on the screen. This is the Mcgurk effect. When the visual cue is in conflict with the audible cue the brain automatically picks the visual cue as the reliable one.
"You'll note I said nothing at all about "precise imaging". Just observed the ability to render all the instruments clearly in a larger apparent space."
Yeah, I was the one who brought up the issue of the percieved precision of imaging. That was not meant to be an argument against anything you said.
Keep in mind microphone positioning for most recordings. That explains the precision to a large degree.
I have some recordings where the microphones were at "live" distances and the imaging precision is much more like you would get live.
Not to mention compression and EQ'ing kills any realism ...
every microphone ever used to recorded live music has it's own inherent EQ built in.
Change positions in the concert hall and you change the spectral balance of the sound. But it will be just as realistic being that it is still real.
"every microphone ever used to record live music has it's own inherent EQ built in. "10-4 on that!
:)
Edits: 12/31/16
yes. But my point was that without the visual cues that more "natural" imaging will not be *percieved* as realistic because it will have virtually no specificity. So IMO the less truly realistic but more palpable and clear imaging we get with the most highly praised audiophile recordings will seem to be more realistic and will be prefered in terms of sound quality.
So, you mean to tell me that you never close your eyes at a live concert? I find that I do this quite often...particularly at classical concerts. Guess, what? i can still get quite good "imaging" and "soundstaging". I can easily still tell where the violins, flute, oboe, cellos and basses are located. Or a soloist. I can also tell the horns and the percussion are in the back. Is it razor sharp? Only if I am sitting very close but that is true whether my eyes are open or not.
Visual cues are not required to be able to get good auditory placement in live un amplified concerts...for amplified concerts it is more important since most of the sound is coming to you disconnected from the performers.
Yes I have done that. But that experiement is basically poisoned to a degree once you have visually located the various musicians. OTOH there have been a number of times when I did not see where particular musicians were seated before the music started and they were placed in atypical positions. In those cases I absolutely could not locate those musicians by sound alone. *We hear what we know.* When the unexpected happens it's not so clear. And that is the real test.
I think it's pretty close to always.
I have quite a few recordings that work to the contrary.
And certainly many that exhibit extreme "precision" like a number of 60s recordings that exhibit ping-pong instrument and voice placement. For some reason, it seems poor Astrid Gilberto was frequently placed on one side of the room. :)
But of course. But when we talk about some of the best sounding recordings of acoustic music we are pretty much always talking about recordings that exhibit very palpable imaging in a very well conveyed sound space. We can point to the different sections and get a sense of depth/distance and a sense of size of the instruments and a sense of space around them and a sense of the concert hall. Any recording of live music that fails to convey these qualities is generally deemed to be inferior recordings in terms of sound quality. Would you not agree?
I'll agree to most of what you've said, but not necessarily with "very palpable imaging".
Many of the recordings to which I refer are minimally miked Telarcs that provide a very realistic diffuse sounding nature when it comes to individual instrument localization.
Yes, the violins are to the left, heavy brass typically back right, but I can't tell you where the oboist is seated or how the violas are arranged.
What you descibe is indeed very "realistic" imaging. I prefer less realistic more palpable imaging and a nice thick palpable sense of hall space. Here is why. In a live concert we percieve imaging that is very palpable and pretty well defined because we can see the musicians. (generally) and those visual cues literally make our brains think we are hearing sound with more specificity of location than we are actually hearing. IMO the less accurate imaging of many audiophile favorites compensate for the lack of visual cues. And in effect seem more realistic to most listeners. Personally I don't care so much as to whether or not it's more accurate. I just like the sense of palpable presence that comes with that kind of imaging. Makes the music more visceral for me.
That sums it up nicely - to each his own!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: