|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.3.91.159
In a quest to chose the "best" each audiophile needs to decide what it is is meant by the best. There appears to be two objective camps battling it out.
First the measurement crowd. Not really sure what they stand for but one has to conclude they would think better measurements mean better audio system performance. Taking that stand it matters not how a recording sounds as long as it is played back faithful to the media be it digital bits or grooves cut into vinyl is how they define Audio System Performance.
Second the live reference crowd - who for the most part would deny the undeniable objective nature of their position. Given perfect recordings of a particular quality one should be able to recreate the live performance at playback. So how a systems sounds given particular recordings becomes their definition of Audio System Performance - how the systems sound with other recordings is the cost of doing things this way.
Both these methods seem honorable but flawed for someone like me. And further if someone didn't want to listen to recordings judged good enough to define high fi performance the measurement method would be far preferable. Put the two together and even if we could establish the best specifications for our designers to work to in order to achieve the best results for recordings of some particular quality only those interested in such recordings would be well served.
In my experience the best system, and I submit the best performing system, is achieved by using a wide diversity of common recordings representing the range of musical interests of the equipment buyer as evaluated in the listening room of the equipment buyer. The greater the diversity of the recordings used in the evaluation, and thus component selection, the more chance of successful playback (ie. enjoyment of the music) of new music. I doubt very much this system will sound as good as the "best" system with ideal recordings (but given great recordings it will sound great) or will it measure the best.
Everyone's got a different purpose in this hobby. But it seems to me the neither camp serves the purpose of someone who wants to listen to and enjoy the almost limitless body of recorded works - in fact I think both camps limit an audiophiles ability to do that.
And FWIW I don't care if someone sell $20 worth of cable for $2000 or $100 for bottles of rocks. It's a free world if someone else wants to spend their own money on it more power to them and more power to those that sell it. Get a life - I can't believe some people try to characterize the whole of audio like that. Silly as it sounds at least those guys probably got some clue about the importance of component matching at the physical/electrical level, too bad most of the other side banters the term "synergy" about but most are unable to define it 1/2 way reasonably when asked.
Synergy - choosing equipment with similar strengths. Preferably strengths that align with the preferences of listener. Ie. getting the best of whats most important to the guy spending the money.
Follow Ups:
"In my experience the best system, and I submit the best performing system, is achieved by using a wide diversity of common recordings representing the range of musical interests of the equipment buyer as evaluated in the listening room of the equipment buyer."
yup
""Synergy - choosing equipment with similar strengths. Preferably strengths that align with the preferences of listener. Ie. getting the best of whats most important to the guy spending the money. ""
EVERY piece of equipment is flawed in some way.
No two rooms sound the same.
Synergy is finding components that enhance the strengths of other components & mitigate the weaknesses of the other components.
If an amp is pretty even throughout the sonic spectrum, yet has a slight boost in the upper midrange, it will be symbiotic with a speaker that has a slight hole in the upper midrange.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"Synergy is finding components that enhance the strengths of other components & mitigate the weaknesses of the other components.If an amp is pretty even throughout the sonic spectrum, yet has a slight boost in the upper midrange, it will be symbiotic with a speaker that has a slight hole in the upper midrange."
That is not synergy. I guess if one is trying to build the most mediocre and characterless system available your thinking makes sense.
If one is interested in great midrange performance then every component chosen should have great midrange performance. Really to think one is getting something selecting equipment that makes up for each other deficiencys is senseless. When something is lost, it's lost, you can't get it back in another component. What's up with that?
Go for what you like and pile on those strengths. It's true that all equipment is flawed in one way or the other. So it should be obvious that one should select components with similar strengths that align with the listeners preferences.
IMO it's kind of weird and silly for some to try to put a system together as you suggest.
Edits: 12/17/12
The two errors can, potentially, offset each other exactly. One does not listen to individual components, one listens to the complete system, or, more precisely, the complete record-playback chain. There would be no reason to prefer a system with two perfectly "flat" components, vs. one that had two components with exactly offsetting errors. There would be nothing mediocre about such a system.
Some types of errors, especially non-linear distortion, do not have offsetting errors, so in this case your conclusion would be correct, but I don't believe that's what Sordidman was discussing.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"The two errors can, potentially, offset each other exactly. One does not listen to individual components, one listens to the complete system, or, more precisely, the complete record-playback chain. There would be no reason to prefer a system with two perfectly "flat" components, vs. one that had two components with exactly offsetting errors. There would be nothing mediocre about such a system."Too much potentially, perfect and exact in your comment to be credible to me.
And again I think it's ludicrous to think you could find a component with a disturbing audible frequency flaw that could be corrected by another component with an exactly opposite frequency flaw without introducing loss or performance hit into the system.
That said, even if you had such a system, good luck when replacing or upgrading components.
And FWIW - for the most part small speakers with low bass limits will not produce deep bass not matter how much deep bass you pump into them. If you want deep bass you do not select speakers with no bass. It's wishful thinking at best to think you can do what you suggest.
"Some types of errors, especially non-linear distortion, do not have offsetting errors, so in this case your conclusion would be correct, but I don't believe that's what Sordidman was discussing."Personally I'm far less effected by perfect frequency response or tonal balance given a reasonably good system than I am by musical drive or captivating vocal performance or the ability to playback all kinds of recordings. IMO the stuff that makes the most difference (given a decent frequency response) can not be replaced or made up for once it is lost.
And without your perfect and exact definers neither can frequency response. Your point, and Soridmans, is a strawman....
Edits: 12/20/12 12/20/12 12/20/12
"Too much potentially, perfect and exact in your comment to be credible to me."
Some errors have exact inverses, so they can be corrected. This is likely to be true for many linear problems associated with electronics, less true for transducers and even less true for acoustics. Examples are RIAA equalization for LP and IEC/CCITT or NAB equalization for magnetic tape. Correction doesn't have to be perfect, in any event, just within perhaps 0.25 dB.
Non-linear distortion is much more difficult, if not impossible, to cancel, because unlike linear errors it results in expanded bandwidth or outright information loss (e.g. clipping). Attempts to cancel this distortion often result in what is perceived as worse distortion due to psycho-acoustic effects.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Don't forget the out-of-band issues Tony, that stool has a third leg and it may be the most fertile area of symbiosis. If I introduce a black box that attenuates spurious energy emitted by a source that the load is susceptible to (or vise-versa) it can be a real miracle cure. Since this tends to be a higher order effect it has a rather abrupt threshold and a small change can make a huge difference.
Rick
Goober58: those 'weasel words' are necessary to have any credibility. If they are not stated they should be assumed but one can't always count on it. There are so many poorly controlled variables in home audio that broad statements say little about a given instance but may be generally useful.
Tony did a good job avoiding falling into the trap of not using those words, at first read that's where I was going, on second read I noted he had covered that. I agree with your point.Discussing the definition of synergy there should be no question that one selects components capable of delivering the most important performance criteria for any particular listener. If I like a powerful rhythmic bass then every component I select should provide that - any component that detracts from that should be rejected. Same for a natural midrange response or whatever other criteria one judges to be important. If you do this the compromises of your system and your components are those you, the buyer and listener, find less important*.
It makes sense, on some kind of an academic level, that one would select a component with an audible midrange dip, if it was important to his listening then be limited to selecting another component to "make up" for it. On a practical level it sounds like non-sense to me, as do black box solutions to poorly selected electrically/physically non compatible components.
*When I learned how to do that, select components based on strengths, it didn't take me long to realize care has to be taken not to get too much of a good thing.
Edits: 12/20/12
"The greater the diversity of the recordings used in the evaluation, and thus component selection, the more chance of successful playback (ie. enjoyment of the music) of new music. I doubt very much this system will sound as good as the "best" system with ideal recordings (but given great recordings it will sound great) or will it measure the best."
Sounds to me like this would be a system that really isn't the "best" at all, but rather one that simply homogenizes good and bad recordings into a more listenable melee of music. I really think a lot of audiophiles buy REALLY good equipment and then try to dumb it down with magic cables and extremely old/rare/NOS tubes to deal with the fact that some of their most treasured music is recorded very very poorly.
Audiophiles are like race car drivers who want a race car that is "the best"... that will work on dry track, wet track, snow covered track, dirt track, and track with large pot holes in it.
Cheers,
Presto
There being no sound standards for how recordings are to be made, a playback system that is set up to play a range of recordings well will be, at best, a compromise.
The idea is to arrive at a compromise that :
1. Makes the very best recordings sound magically real
2. Makes other very good recordings sound very good
3. Makes good recordings sound good
4. Makes all but very bad recordings enjoyable to listen to.
In my experience, this is not impossible to achieve. I have accomplished it recently with my present system and have done this in the past as well. In addition to being able to play music for hours on end without any fatigue, my system is also very revealing of recording details and faults, such as microphone patterns and extraneous sounds, and so is useful in mastering new recordings. However, if one just wants to enjoy the music, one does so and none of these technical details interferes.
There are recordings that are hopeless, of course. But in my collection they are few and far between, because I have taken care to weed out bad ones and to generally banish entire record labels that are notorious for their bad sound.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
" But in my collection they are few and far between, because I have taken care to weed out bad ones and to generally banish entire record labels that are notorious for their bad sound."
How dare you?!?
You're supposed to collect based on only what you like and then swap out perfectly good components in a stream of endless iterations trying to make a handful of bad recordings sound listenable!! ;)
Just kidding. I do the exact same thing.
My view on audio and music is that a fastastic painting that is rendered in the wrong light or defaced or reproduced and altered is no better than a poor painting. I believe that something that is "good" (in terms of subjective quality) is worth capturing "well".
I also lean towards artists who seem to give a damn about recording methods and the quality of their final product. :P
I'm surely not all "music lover" - a good chunk of me is "audiophile".
Cheers,
Presto
Back in the early 1960's, my buddy J. Peter Moncrief and I used to read record jackets to see the name of the recording engineer. If it said "Lewis Layton" or "Bob Fine" we knew this was one to pull out of the stacks.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Wilma Cozart Fine was in charge of the Mercury Living Presence CD project, the results of which are nothing if not spectacular. And let"s not forget Bud Wilkinson.
Edits: 01/04/13
"Sounds to me like this would be a system that really isn't the "best" at all, "Depends on how one defines "best"!
"but rather one that simply homogenizes good and bad recordings into a more listenable melee of music."
There might be some truth in this but not to the degree your comment suggests.
The truth is to get more music out of more recordings the stereo has to more accurately reproduce music. As opposed to measuring better or faithfully reproducing ideal recordings.
Another thing. I don't correlate a good recording with good sound and a bad recording with bad sound. A good recording can sound bad and a bad recording can sound good. However one can, and often we do, build stereos around recording quality and thus by design good recordings will sound good and bad recordings will sound bad.
To clarify "good recording" can actually be anything we define it to be at the outset. Many audiophile chose minimally mic'd acoustic or true stereo recordings. But one could chose Judas Priest or Motley Crew records and get the same expected results - the stereo is gonna sound great on the chosen recordings.
On an accurate musical stereo a good recording will sound like a good recording but that doesn't mean it will sound good, and a bad recording will sound like a bad recording but that doesn't mean it will sound bad.
"I really think a lot of audiophiles buy REALLY good equipment and then try to dumb it down with magic cables and extremely old/rare/NOS tubes to deal with the fact that some of their most treasured music is recorded very very poorly."
I understand what you're saying here but the problem is IMO if they need to do that then they didn't buy really REALLY good equipment in the first place. Though I do admit that that equipment might be really REALLY good equipment for someone who doesn't feel the need to "dumb" it down.
Recordings don't make sound - stereos do. Though stereos should allow you to know about how a recording was made or assembled how it sounds (good or bad) 100% depends on the stereo.
Edits: 12/06/12
"Though stereos should allow you to know about how a recording was made or assembled how it sounds (good or bad) 100% depends on the stereo."No. It really doesn't. The stereo is not a separate entity. A stereo that is 100% of the "sound" has no recording and has no listener and has no room.
Room + speakers + system + recording + (listeners hearing and emotions and biases) = 100% of sound.
Also, when I sad "bad/good" recordings, I meant "subjectively bad recordings" and "subjectively good recordings", aka how they SOUND. I don't care that there might be a technical disaster of a recording that sound subjectively good and a technically prestine recording that somehow sounds bad. I also was not referring to quality of performance - a bad performance can be recorded well OR poorly, as can a fantastic performance. With performance, we only blame the musicians and maybe the conductor!. I definately did not mean a "technically bad" recording that sounds "subjectively good" and vice versa. I mean: no matter how it was contrived, bad recordings are the ones that SOUND bad and good recordings are the ones that SOUND good.
The kind of detail rendering audiophiles want is never a bad thing; it's only bad when they can tolerate this detail level on some recordings and not on others.
My stereo very often reveals to me the limitations of poor recordings. Fortunately for me, the genres and groups I like more often than not have a wide variety of excellent recordings. Those who are love with vintage blues that was recorded with highly compromised equipment or transferred from highly compromised formats (some vintage 78 RPM record transfers for example) may not enjoy such a wide selection of QUALITY recordings. They might capture very moving and rare and fantastic music, but to say it is CAPTURED well is just simply incorrect. It's band limited, midrange forward, sometimes off pitch, and filled with cracks and pops. That cannot be good for the sound, except in the rare case the "bad sound" is part of the actual subjective aesthetic of the music.
Like that horrible "country crackle" paint, which I believe was borne of a bad production run and someone took some home and it caught on with the "Martha Stewart" home DIYer set.
Some recordings should be played back on a grammaphone or 78 RPM phonograph with a nail for a needle. At least that way, you have synergy between the bad recording and the bad equipment...
Cheers,
Presto
Edits: 12/06/12
Here's a story of the interaction between a recording and the playback system, prompted by your post.
The other day I download a 96/24 recording of Bruckner's 7th. The performance had sounded good from the samples, but when I played the recording the sound was horribly harsh. As I was suffering all the way through I decided to play a game, namely to guess exactly what parametric EQ settings to use that would improve the recording. As it turned out, I wasn't right on, but a few minutes more tweaking and I had a "remastered" version of the recording that actually sounded very good, with a full sound stage, no dullness, but virtually all of the harshness from the strings long gone.
What were the engineers thinking? Or, more probably, what was wrong with the system they were using to monitor the recording? Who is right? Who is wrong? Which version of the recording is good or bad? Things for people who only listen to recordings to think about.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony -
A couple years ago I heard Garrick Ohlsson play one of his great Chopin concerts. The next day I went to the Hyperion site and downloaded his recording of the Polonaises. Dreadful: no bass, honky upper mids, distant, muffled, no highs, gritty, flat as a pancake. Overall, like the Bad Old Early Days of CD. Confirmed it on multiple systems, with CAL Sigma II, Metric Halo ULN2, and Universal Audio 2192 converters. Undeterred (or foolish) I bought his box set on CD, thinking I just had to have his work, no matter how bad it sounded. The CDs are terrific. (ahh - big sigh here)
I wrote Hyperion, asking how this could be. They replied that the files were identical to the CDs, and yes, they had listened to both and they sounded identical.
It remains a mystery to me. OK, the response I got from Hyperion is probably from some flunky charged with dealing with those pesky customers, so let's ignore that. But the difference between the FLAC files and the CD is so huge - someone at Hyperion must have heard both. WTF.
WW
New Orthophonic High Fidelity
Well, Tony...
We do quickly get into semantics issues with these discussions (such as me and the OP discussing what constitutes a good or bad recording, be it appraised by subjective or objective criterion).
In your case, you likely have no idea what would consitute an equalization transfer function that would "reverse" some of the EQ woes done in the recording / mixing / mastering process. What you did is subjectively EQ the recording - it SOUNDS better now.
This is all I mean by "good and bad" recordings. Those that sound good are good, those that sound bad are bad.
Now, for more semantics, you differentiate between those who listen to recordings and those who (I assume) listen to MUSIC.
Therein lies the rub: We listen to recordings OF music. The fact it's recorded music cannot be eliminated from the equation no matter how determined some of us are to do just that (me included).
Cheers,
Presto
"In your case, you likely have no idea what would consitute an equalization transfer function that would "reverse" some of the EQ woes done in the recording / mixing / mastering process. What you did is subjectively EQ the recording - it SOUNDS better now."
Yes, it sounds better, on a carefully calibrated (by listening and measuring) playback system that has been adjusted so that the majority of recorded music will sound good on it, leaving only outliers as sounding bad. By sounding better, I mean sounds like a plausible reproduction of a Bruckner symphony in a decent concert hall from a seating perspective consonant with the level of reverberation in the recording. I don't know that the recording was EQ'd other than the transfer function of the microphones and the position of the microphones in respect to the violins, which have different frequency balance at different radiation angles. It would have been better to have moved the microphones to slightly different locations, rather than do the fixup that I did, but, either way, a bad recording was transformed into a good one.
"The fact it's recorded music cannot be eliminated from the equation no matter how determined some of us are to do just that (me included)."
I expect recorded music to give me the same emotional experience as a live concert, with the exception of the doubt one experiences during an actual performance that the artists will actually pull it off.... I also expect that recordings of small ensembles and solo instruments will play back in a living room with equivalent sonic results to having the actual musicians present and performing. For small scale ensembles this is entirely possible, as I have demonstrated to my personal satisfaction by recordings that I have made.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Yes, it sounds better, on a carefully calibrated (by listening and measuring) playback system that has been adjusted so that the majority of recorded music will sound good on it, leaving only outliers as sounding bad. By sounding better,"
This is my philosophy. Have a system that is very detailed and resolving despite being neutral. I think some audiophiles deplore "neutral" because they associate neutral with boring or pedestrian and run off to find some exciting "voicing" done by a boutique designer.
"I expect recorded music to give me the same emotional experience as a live concert,"
I get more spine chills and goose pimples at home actually. For me, a concert is a more engaging experience where I get to be in the company of the performers I want to see. The visuals are not virtual but real, as is the acoustics of the venue. It may not sound perfect, but it's the ACATUAL sound of THAT venue with THOSE musicians with THEIR PA equipment. Because there is a PA involved I don't worry so much. Unplugged instruments? That's surreal. From string and soundbox right to my ear. I guess for me is that although I enjoy both I just think of them as different ways to appreciate art which BOTH give me satisfaction, just in slightly different ways.
Cheers,
Presto
"Room + speakers + system + recording + (listeners hearing and emotions and biases) = 100% of sound."
Nope I disagree but thanks for your clarification room+speakers+system is what I refer to as the stereo.
Recording is the input and how any individual listener qualifies the output is nothing more than his opinion.
"I mean: no matter how it was contrived, bad recordings are the ones that SOUND bad and good recordings are the ones that SOUND good."
Of course but which one's sound good and which ones sound bad is a function of the system. I'm not trying to be obtuse here but the volume control exists for a reason - no matter how broken the vast majority of recordings should provide at least a reasonable music experience within a volume range limited by reasonable expectation.
"The kind of detail rendering audiophiles want is never a bad thing; it's only bad when they can tolerate this detail level on some recordings and not on others."
Nice - almost. Sure it's not a bad thing - however understanding that detail rendering can be unnatural and amusical seems to be more difficult for many audiophiles than it is to decide if something sounds good or sounds bad. Adding to the confusion most audiophile quality recordings can sound stunningly good on just about any stereo including mostly medicre ones.
"My stereo very often reveals to me the limitations of poor recordings."
Mine too but rarely do such limitations interfere with my enjoyment of the recordings - see below.
"Fortunately for me, the genres and groups I like more often than not have a wide variety of excellent recordings. "
Well if I say an excellent sounding recording means an excellent recording I would agree with you. But I don't say that. Even though most recordings sound great/excellent via my gear I wouldn't consider most of them excellent recordings.
"Those who are love with vintage blues that was recorded with highly compromised equipment or transferred from highly compromised formats (some vintage 78 RPM record transfers for example) may not enjoy such a wide selection of QUALITY recordings. "
I think I have a at least a couple of very old historical recordings (as well as some tracks on some comps or box sets) that really aren't worth listening to but I have many old ones that are pretty crappy that still capture the essence, or at least what I consider to be the essence, of the music on recording. Reasonable playback of this kind of stuff is essential......
nt
I agree their is no "best" that everyone will agree is best at any price point. I suppose some might argue that with "proper training" we would all agree. Maybe but I've got better things to do than to become properly trained.
Edits: 12/05/12
Well, training is only as good as the system you are training on. Most systems, even expensive ones at high end audio salons and shows, are simply too generic sounding, too lacking in the attributes that audiophiles strive to obtain. You know, things like transparency, height of soundstage, air, slam, liquidness, puffiness, etc, Given the generic, blasé, lackluster, undistinguished sound most people actually have access to, how can one call himself "trained" on high end sound, and how can one make practical decisions based in such training? So, I know what you're thinking, where do I go to find a real high end system, one with real high end performance instead of make believe high end performance, to train on? Answer at 11.
I was kind of thinking you become trained when you believe that what the person training you tells you sounds best is actually what sounds best. The typical way it works is some hifi dealer or guru tells me what sounds best and when I monkey his rants back at him he makes me feel more welcome in his shop or his home and when I buy the same equipment, new from his shop or used from him when he upgrades I become a cherished member of the inner circle. That's what I call training and contributing to the evolution of high end audio....
Edits: 12/18/12
With no reference standard for achieving/reproducing lifelike sound might as well take whoever has the tastiest kool aide. Though I can certainly appreciate the advances over the past 50 years of stereo, it seems to me the industry should be looking forward to more 3D realism rather than more dwelling and training in the ways of the ancients.
My system is anything but generic; I believe I have one of the best systems on the planet.
I am sure you believe it too. Kind of like a self fulfilling prophecy.
Just like a subjective evaluation of an expensive tweak. You have to believe, don't you?
You wrote,
"Just like a subjective evaluation of an expensive tweak. You have to believe, don't you?"
Uh, if you say so.
"Folks would be better off if they believed in too much rather than too little." - PT Barnum
"It's what I chose to believe." - Dr. Elizabeth Shaw in Prometheus
Your first quote from the circus guy is a better fit.
Apart from the question of individual listeners having their own perspective, even with one listener there may not be a "best" over the universe of possible systems. Preference is, at best, a partial ordering. One might have two systems A and B which end up tied. Both are maximal, in the sense that neither one ever loses a match, but neither always ends up as a winner.
Worse, preferences aren't even ordered in a logically consistent fashion. It is possible for A to beat B, B to beat C, and C to beat A, as in the game of "Rock, Paper, Scissors". When this happens to an audiophile the result may end up a financial disaster.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
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: