|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.15.32.233
In Reply to: RE: Michael S., about your by-line..... posted by vinnie2 on March 01, 2014 at 03:18:17
"Isn't it really all about what sounds good to the listener?"
One of these days I want to start a discussion of this. Where does "high fidelity" fit into this?. Fidelity as defined by Oxford is "The degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced".
I think high fidelity as a goal is critically important, and sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks so.
Follow Ups:
Guitar amps produce prodigious distortion by design; they're part of the instrument. Audio reproduction systems should be high fidelity (using the definition you found).
Single ended triode systems can sound incredibly involving and musical, even while producing several percent harmonic distortion.
So there you have what may be the quintessence of the two camps: Measurably good and sounds good.
For me it's both: I want systems that sound good AND have low distortion. My favorite amp topology is push-pull class A--because it usually SOUNDS good.
If others want to buy based on pleasing rather than realistic sound, that's ok with me. This should be about enjoying the music, and whatever gets you there is fine. To quote Duke Ellington (ok, speaking about music, not sound reproduction), "If it sounds good, it is good."
Well at least class A for the first few watts which are what we mostly listen to anyway.
Honest amplification is better than excessive 2nd order distortion anytime.
There is only one thing wrong with your argument Jim, and that is we are totally unable to reproduce the listening environment in which these recordings were made. Even though you might be able to reproduce what went on the record, we have no way of knowing what it sounded like in the venue in which it was recorded. Therefore, exact reproduction of the performance is not possible.Further more, the same symphony played in by the same muscians in a different hall will sound different. Some people will like one better than the other, but that does not make it better, only diffent. Beauty is in the eyes and ears of the beholder.Looking at it another way; when you go to a performance what are you after? Why enjoyment of the music of course, and it has to sound good to you for you to enjoy it. I don't think it should be any different in the home environment. The fact that some of us like the sound of SE better than PP just points out that not everyone hears things the same way. To say that one is better than another is just a value judgement in the end.
Edits: 03/02/14 03/02/14
"There is only one thing wrong with your argument Jim, and that is we are totally unable to reproduce the listening environment in which these recordings were made."
I don't agree Vinnie. Maybe we can't exactly duplicate the environment, but we get enough ambient info in good systems that we can tell the difference between halls/recording studios/etc.
But what is so important to realize is that NONE of the above really applies if what we are trying to do is to faithfully reproduce the recorded material supplied to us. Changing the nature/tailoring of the recording is not "high fidelity". For us as listeners that recording is the "original" which we strive to reproduce with the highest level of fidelity in whatever our listening environment may be.
I can really enjoy listening to music in my car. It has a very good audio system in it - but it is by no means high fidelity. My home system offers excellent fidelity, not because it is more pleasing to listen to than in my car (although it is), but because it is more faithful to the source.
I will be willing to bet that there is more to your home system sounding better than just being "faithful to the source". The quality of the reproducing system is a big factor too; ie car radio vs tricked out HK system.
The other thing is that the overall reason for listening to music is to enjoy it. I think that can best be done on a system that test instruments may not show as being as faithful in reproduction but my ears and common sense tell me is closer to the original SOUND and much more pleasant to listen too.
The simple fact is differnt people like different systems for different reasons and no one system or format will ever be right for everyone, and no one type is "better" than the other, just different. Which takes us full circle back to my origanl comment to Mike. Tha, tha, that's all folks!
Edits: 03/03/14 03/03/14 03/03/14
Hi Vinnie,
It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, but one last thought...
"I will be willing to bet that there is more to your home system sounding better than just being "faithful to the source". The quality of the reproducing system is a big factor too"
Actually no - my goal has always been fidelity. That's what drew me to the Citation amps years ago, and to hi-rez digital and top shelf analog. Excellent program material + excellent electronics + excellent transducers = excellent fidelity. At least to me (and the people who have heard my system)...
Thanks for the interchange of ideas my friend!
I agree to disagree. : )
If none of us were present when the material was recorded, any judgement on fidelity is based on playback using a particular system. If, if fact, you were present during the recording process, the next question becomes "how good is your audio memory"? Can you remember exactly how something sounded years later? And, yes, most recordings are "engineered" to sound a particular way. Not all, but most. The goal is rarely to reproduce a performance exactly. Not never, but rarely.
So, if we accept that the accurate reproduction of the recording is the goal, who decides which system serves as the "control", against which other systems are judged, in determining how faithfully a recording is reproduced? If faithful, distortion free, reproduction is based on measurements using testing equipment then wouldn't we all be listening to SS equipment?
I love, and am inspired by, music and great songs. I enjoy their reproduction on some systems and combinations of components more than others. Listeners may compare playback on a variety of systems and rank them differently. Is only one listener "right" about the question of which is the most accurate system?
Don't take it to extremes. "High" fidelity is not the same as "perfect" fidelity. There's some wiggle room there, but IMHO moving beyond that is counterproductive."If faithful, distortion free, reproduction is based on measurements using testing equipment then wouldn't we all be listening to SS equipment?"
No, by no means. Remember that ALL systems distort, there is no such thing as distortion free. One of the limitations to us reaching "perfect fidelity" is that fact. SS gear produces different distortion spectra than tubed gear. So many of us choose tube gear because the distortion spectrum it presents is more pleasing to our ears. But carried too far it becomes a detriment to fidelity - as Mikey in essence says in his own inimitable way (I'm paraphrasing here) "Euphony is not fidelity".
Edits: 03/02/14
Same holds true for components, especially speakers.
I heard, years ago, a pair of Wilson Audio speakers in this used audio store I used to frequent. I thought they sounded amazing so I took them home to play in my room with the equipment they were hooked up to.
I my audio room they were terrible.
"I think high fidelity as a goal is critically important, and sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks so."
You are NOT alone! I believe the object of the exercise is to get as close as is possible to the original performance. The revered RCA and Mercury recordings were engineered by people who placed themselves at the musicians disposal. Little wonder in about their standing the test of time.
Unfortunately, so many recent recordings, especially of "pop" material, have been heavily processed by "engineers". Never mind the fact that performers may not have heard each other, while laying a track down.
Eli D.
You know you or Jim aren't alone on this because I state it publicly in my signature line.While I clearly understand the argument of some,that audio will never be an exact science and to go with what sounds good to the listener,I still think we should at least try to emulate the original source as much as we can.I haven't found circuits with excessive 2nd order distortion to be able to do that..Yes,certain types of distortion can be seductively pleasing under the right circumstances however, I still want to strive for a reasonable facsimilie of correctness,while at the same time enjoying the seamless attributes that vacuum tubes offer in a hifi audio system.
Honest amplification is better than excessive 2nd order distortion anytime.
Edits: 03/01/14
Mike,
I know there are some that agree with you and Eli and me, but it just seems to me that over the last few years especially much of the focus has moved away from the pursuit of fidelity.
Jim
I think some of that comes from the fact that we are living in a society of convenience.I have people tell me all the time that they know tube amps and vinyl records produce much more realism than CDs,streaming,and solid state amps but they don't want to deal with the inconvenience of changing tubes and cleaning records along with the added expense that comes with it.This is a hobby where I would like to think we at least strive for perfection in audio.I had at least six people locally tell me why I was crazy for running 50 year old citation amps on 26k dollar modern reference ESL speakers.One of the guys has the same Martin Logan CLX speakers that I have and he is running Krell mono blocks on them..I invited him over about six months ago and he was silenced by what he heard because he was so shocked at the correctness and the staging of the system.He immediately started looking for a pair of Deuces and he was able to find one, so he calls me about a month ago and asked if I would sell one of my rebuilt citation 2s? I said David,what I am supposed to use if I sell you one of my Citations? Hell,you have all those other tube amps you can use..He acted like he was joking but he really wanted to buy one of my amps and then wants me to rebuild the other he has to match mine.I told him there are plenty of them on Ebay and Audiogon...I have four of them..Two run the ESLS and the others are spares more or less.I had no idea he was looking for a pair until one of our local groupies told me.
Then there was another guy that heard them and he ended up buying a pair of citation 5s to run on his Quad 2905s.
It goes to show that when you have speakers that are fast with low distortion and are highly accurate,you are going to want equipment that complements it..I heard the Krells on Dave's speakers and they were clean but they put you to sleep.In other words they were lifeless and boring.
Honest amplification is better than excessive 2nd order distortion anytime.
Edits: 03/02/14
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: