|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.98.6.89
In Reply to: RE: vintage hifi show documentary posted by bullethead on September 13, 2016 at 06:20:55
One of the persons interviewed made a very simple quick comment that really rings true.
"New gear has improved in technology but it's just not very musical."
Something that I've been finding to be all too true. Plugged in my new NAD C275BEE. Man that think is sharp clean and bouncy. What could be so wrong?? Put the Sherwood back in and it's music. Sweet soothing music.
The only new piece I find to try and keep the music still a priority is my Marantz PM8004. Still very musical.
Follow Ups:
Charles,
You comment on "sounding musical" made me remember something.
A good while back, I posted here about the Audiophile Checklist approach. Clarity? Check, Wide soundstage? Check, Solid low bass?, check. The point is we all have these characteristics we look for; but it diverts us from listening holistically. We should try to forget the checklist, and just sit back and listen to the overall sound - the music. Does it bring pleasure, or do you starting picking it apart - detail by detail.
I wish I could remember who I'm quoting; but years ago, a wise man said something to the effect: Since, with only two channels, it is impossible to recreate a live performance in the home; the best we can do is to create the aesthetic equivalent in the home. That's good advice! It also doesn't fit well with the Check List approach.
I think designers of the past were more interested in the aesthetic equivalence than they were the High End Checklist.
My test is whether I fall asleep after a while. I take it as a sign that the experience relaxes me.
Jerry
We should try to forget the checklist, and just sit back and listen to the overall sound - the music.
If you recall, we recently had a discussion where you indicated the engineer in you wanted to know exactly why two preamps delivered difference perceived bass response, yet measured similarly. That seems to me to be an example of an inquisitive "checklist" approach. Which factor is responsible? Was it truly frequency response? Phase linearity? Power supply stiffness?
In this case, however, you seem to take the opposite tack. Why spend time analyzing which factors in musical reproduction affect the "holistic" effect, right?
I guess my approach lies somewhere in the middle. :)
My test is whether I fall asleep after a while.
My test is a bit different. On many an occasion while listening to HP's systems, I found myself laughing out loud at how remarkably realistic the result was! I simply couldn't believe how the walls disappeared and how deeply I got lost into the music!
It's hard to separate the two approaches. I'd have to say though, that my inquiry into why the preamps sound different isn't a check list approach in my opinion. Instead, it's the engineer (or the physicist) doing his thing. A kind of reverse engineering in this case. But a similar process to what the designer does along the way to bring a product to fruition. Quite different than the kind of rhetoric you find in Stereophile reviewer's comments where they dissect the sound of a product. Stuff like: this product is not as liquidly transparent in the highs as my reference system, and the midrange is a bit too forward and lacks the micro dynamics of the XYZ system. That's the Audiophile Checklist.
Jerry
Perhaps we'll just agree to disagree.Quite different than the kind of rhetoric you find in Stereophile reviewer's comments...
I don't find that to be the case at all. Let's dissect your examples:
this product is not as liquidly transparent in the highs as my reference system,
Translation: Why does the high frequency reproduction of A not provide the same resolution and ability to recreate the recorded space as component B?
Seems to be exactly the same question you posed only at the opposite end of the spectrum. The same could be said for your other examples of midrange clarity and ability to handle micro dynamics.
We had another conversation about my current Crown amp here . I raised the same observations where the Crown is superior to the NAD in the midrange, but fails at the top. Similarly, what surprised me most when I got the Audio Research SP20 preamp was how well it delineated the lower end of the dynamic range scale. I'd never thought about that before until the difference was put in my face. Is that because it has a stiffer power supply than 100 watt amplifiers? Dunno. But it works.
Edits: 09/15/16
I think we may have to do that- agree to disagree.
I see my case as different from your example - it's the difference between objective and subjective.
Jerry
"As in: why do two preamps that measure the same for frequency response and output impedance have noticeably different low bass with the same power amp and speakers? No problem hearing the difference; but I'd like to know why."
I guess I just find your "hearing the difference" as an observation in conflict with the objective.
"I think designers of the past were more interested in the aesthetic equivalence than they were the High End Checklist."
I think that Henry Kloss was more interested in the aesthetic experience. That's why the KLH Six was one of my favorite speakers of all time.
I agree. The problem is that it takes a lot of listening to ascertain that a pice of equipment gives you the "aesthetic equivalence". As you have posted many times, it is really the system that gives it to you. One weak link and you are SOL. I agree that falling asleep is a good criteria, but not the only one. For me it is when I forget about the sound and concentrate on the music.
Dave
Dave,
Yes, that too. Also, there are aspects of system performance, such as the "perspective". If I close my eyes in a darkened room and listen to the performance, is it a case of "they are here", or "I am there"? In the latter, the end wall of my room falls away, and I am looking out into the performance space - as if in a theater box. That seems to work for all kinds of music. In the "they are here" situation, the musicians appear to be in the room, in or near the plane of the speakers. That works for somebody accompanying themselves on a guitar, or a string trio; but it's a big leap of imagination to believe the Chicago Symphony has crammed themselves into my room. My brain rejects that, and the illusion falls apart.
I guess what I'm getting at here is the believability of the illusion your system creates. That's a holistic experience, and very much a product of the overall system and room.
Jerry
I have a few new pieces. When I use them I can hear background instruments, spacial placements, dark silent background, dynamics both macro and micro, bla bla bla. All technically very good.
But when I use my Sherwood I simply "feel" music and that inner feeling of just how beautiful this piece of music IS. A tonal quality of the music.
Now both pieces SHOULD be replicating the source material with little distortion - buuuuut.
Like looking at a winters night star. Admiring the blackness and beauty or just considering its nuclear fusion phase and energy output
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: