What is a worthy achievement in a hifidelity system ?

i completely agree with this and this has been a topic discussion with many folks . While i would like lifelike Tone, dynamics and resolution, expecting it to sound live is a chimera ... the twain can never meet.

So then, what is the "ideal" goal of a stereo system ?

To 'link' and 'connect' with the performance ? A radio can do that, sometimes.

Faithfully reproduce the mastertape ? But the master tape (like an electric guitar ) does not have a sound of its own...

Would be hasty to reject something without putting in place a better yardstick...

@Ampnut,

I was looking at playback system from a slightly different perspective.

“Faithfully reproducing what is on the master tape “ ! I agree. If we assume what “ is on a master tape ” has enough potential to help us connect with the music and evoke feelings similar to hearing music live, then the playback system producing also needs to be able to do so.

If it doesn’t, then there is something wrong according to this perspective. If the system only exists as a scientific instrument instead of letting the listener connect with music, it looks odd from this perspective.

I am not supporting any particular method, but I seem to be gravitating more towards this perspective since it looks more meaningful to me.

square wave said:

...but I seem to be gravitating more towards this perspective since it looks more meaningful to me.

Sorry, square wave... I am lost.

What is "this perspective" that you are referring to ?

Amp_Nut schrieb:

Faithfully reproduce the mastertape ?

That would only be possible if what is on the master tape is faithfully captured in the CD. So it might be rephrased as "Faithfully reproduce the source ?".

Would be hasty to reject something without putting in place a better yardstick...

AN, what do you feel is being rejected here ?

Amp_Nut schrieb:

square wave said: ...but I seem to be gravitating more towards this perspective since it looks more meaningful to me. Sorry, square wave... I am lost. What is "this perspective" that you are referring to ?

Amp_Nut, I believe that "this perspective" = Romy's perspective of the stereo system trying to capitivate the listener into emotionally experiencing music.

abhi.pani schrieb:

Amp_Nut schrieb: Would be hasty to reject something without putting in place a better yardstick... AN, what do you feel is being rejected here ?

our original goal that the our 2-ch systems try to reproduce sound as close to live as possible (I think! )

actually this whole concept of Live music has been pretty confusing to me.
it can be amplified/non amplified and in the Open or in closed areas and IMHO they all sound pretty different.While we can exclude, amplified music since here again we are hearing the electronics and not the artis, even in unamplified music there can be huge valriances.
<i am dont think getting into points of the point of reference for the sound or about the recording process in a studio makes sense since we have all been there and done that inthe past >

Last month i actually heard the doublebass in 3 places. in a FNAC event in barcelona,in the open street in barcelona And in an openstreet in Paris. All within 2-3 days of each other and the sound just felt different in all 3 instances. in fact the twang one feels in the gut was different in all three cases ! so I am a lot more confused on what is "live". i dont really dont know enough of double bassesto know how different they are frm a model/design view, but the sounds itself were different although all three i could have recognized as a double bass with my eyes closed.

IN the end the clarity /"transparency"/separation you get in the your home setup is just not there in the "Unamplified" live i have heard, but the musical connect is a lot different..you get a lot more involved, irrespective of how unknown the music/artist in a live setup.

...and the only really Live Rock concert i have been to was the Deep purple one in Mumbai in 1994..while it was fun..i prefer the music at home

arj said:

IN the end the clarity /"transparency"/separation you get in the your home setup is just not there in the "Unamplified" live i have heard, but the musical connect is a lot different..you get a lot more involved, irrespective of how unknown the music/artist in a live setup.

I sometimes find a DVD replay of a live concert also quite involving.

Nope... I'm not ready to trade my 2 channel stereo for an idot Box + DVD player....

@Ampnut

I have a feeling I did not make myself sufficiently clear.
I am in no way supporting low fidelity gear or a low fidelity playback system. What essentially motivated me for this thread is the need for “inspired thinking” when we contemplate a high fidelity playback system.

I am gravitating towards the following approach:

A playback system which will “evoke similar feelings as what you feel when you actually listen to live music” because the system is purposefully designed to do exactly that.

As opposed to the following:

A playback system trying in vain to “evoke similar feelings as what you feel when you actually listen to live music” by trying to replicate the “reality of live “.

I have generally see two types of hi-end music systems:

One designed purposefully to make the listener a “scientist “ ! This system if assembled correctly enables the listener to sit in the sweet spot and measure / evaluate myriad of parameters which makes up the sound of music. The system does not connect well with the listener to evoke similar feelings as what you feel when you actually listen to live music. It makes you feel “how far away you are from reality of live“by giving you a very artificially enhanced vision into the various parameters which makes up the “sound of music “ !

The other system is of the variety which is assembled by a listener to enable him to feel “how close I am to the feeling of live” by evoking feelings similar to what you feel when you listen to live music” !
Please note that both the systems are far away from the “reality of live” but the second one succeeds to evoke the right kind of feelings ! Hence more desirable.

Please also note that I am not talking about mushy-sweet and highly colored sounding gear when I am referring to the second one. I am talking about gear which has attained very high levels of fidelity but by purposeful design are capable of connecting with the listener and evoking the right kind of feelings.

Nicely put, Square Wave, and I generally agree with you, but .....

square wave said:

are capable of connecting with the listener and evoking the right kind of feelings.

the BIG variant here is the 'Listener'...

From what I have experienced and seen around me that no 2 listeners are alike.

Each of us looks for rather different clues as to what "evokes the right kind of feelings"

I may abhor a system for exactly the same characteristics that someone loves in his system !

Having a ready reference is essential in establishing a standard. As an example, for length, A foot ? Who's Foot??/ So they took the Kings Foot. Just imagine if every one prefered to go by the measure of their own foot !

Amp_Nut schrieb:

Nicely put, Square Wave, and I generally agree with you, but ..... square wave said: are capable of connecting with the listener and evoking the right kind of feelings. the BIG variant here is the 'Listener'... From what I have experienced and seen around me that no 2 listeners are alike. Each of us looks for rather different clues as to what "evokes the right kind of feelings" I may abhor a system for exactly the same characteristics that someone loves in his system ! Having a ready reference is essential in establishing a standard. As an example, for length, A foot ? Who's Foot??/ So they took the Kings Foot. Just imagine if every one prefered to go by the measure of their own foot !

I agree the listener is the biggest variant.

The opinions when passing judgment on a system is very dependent on the priorities of the listener. But the emotions or the lack of it elicited by systems which belong to different camps will be more or less the same across all listeners. I am talking about emotions that are elicited by innate human feelings that we are all born with. The same feelings which make a kid go wide eyed with wonderment when he hears a song for the first time.

I am sticking my head out. But what do you say ?

square_wave schrieb:

I am sticking my head out. But what do you say ?

in this discussion forum atleast, I hope that your head is not cut off! This is an audio *DISCUSSION* forum & all those who'd like to participate in a civil manner will come forward even if it's a contrarian view. Getting all the views & discussing makes it more fun & hopefully all of us will learn more. So, for your sake, I hope that we all have a good discussion here......



My view on this remains cave-man simple: the most accurate system is the most musical system. I've written this many time before in this forum (& others) & I believe that I still stand by it today.
When your system is accurate, it is musical. When it is musical, it evokes emotions for the music being played. When such emotions are evoked, the mind elevates itself to a higher plane where the consciousness resides & the two are one during that musical experience.
That's my whole premise about getting into hi-end audio....
FWIW. YMMV. IMHO.

Arj schrieb:

IN the end the clarity /"transparency"/separation you get in the your home setup is just not there in the "Unamplified" live i have heard,

touche! I have felt the exactly the same for quite some time now. I've been to several indoor concerts now & have sat in several different places - in the 1st few rows of the concert hall, upstairs in the mezzanine & in the back of the hall on the concert stage level.
In each case, the sounds were different (personally I felt that the mezzanine was the best 'cuz I had the hall roof above & mezzanine floor below & I was sitting in - so to say - in a chute sandwiched between the two into which the sound flowed. Since the mezzanine was far off from the stage, the sounds from the various instruments converged into one cohesive fabric of sound. Pretty much like a 3-way loudspeaker - if you sit 9'-10' way all the drivers integrate & you get cohesive sound as opposed to separate-tweeter-separate-woofer sound).
My 2-ch was different & a lot more detailed & I felt that was incorrect. Hence I got started thinking along similar lines as Romy - what am I trying to achieve with my 2-ch? is it music or is it sound?
In my mind there is a big difference between the two.....

The current ( July / Aug 2011) The Absolute Sound Magazine, Jonathan Valin reviews the US $ 60K MAGICO Q5 speakers, which are said to be extremely neutral (bland ?? ) and low distortion. Hence, he starts the 6 page review with a 2 page preamble on what is Hi Fidility sound.... pretty much along the lines of this debate. Maybe some of you will actually enjoy the read huge Yada yada :

Magico Q 5
California Dreaming
Jonathan Valin
If it does nothing else (and it does plenty else), the
Magico Q5—the current top-line, full-range, fourway
dynamic loudspeaker from the Berkeley-based
company that has, over the last four years, shaken up the
status quo in the ultra-high end—cuts straight to the core
of what we mean when we say something is a “highfidelity”
component.
This is the very issue that led to the foundation of this
magazine, and the position that Harry Pearson staked out
almost forty years ago has been a beacon and a bone of
contention ever since. Should “high fidelity” components,
as HP argued, aim to reproduce the sound of acoustic
(i.e., unamplified) instruments as they are heard in life in
a concert or recital hall? Or, in a significant variant of the
absolute sound approach, should they reproduce precisely
what was recorded on the disc, whether that sounds
like the absolute sound (as it ideally should) or not? Or
should they aim at something else again, something far
less prescriptive and more personal? Should they simply
(or perhaps not so simply) consistently please whoever
listens to them?
Although these views aren’t mutually exclusive, over
the years they have typically been cast as if they were,
as if they represented opposing sides in a never-ending
battle between the forces of “realism,” “accuracy,”
and “musicality.” All three positions are rife with
contradictions, all three share certain patches of common
ground, and all three have been “shaped,” like battlefields,
to reflect the prejudices of individual reviewers and
listeners. The absolute sound school, for example, has
trouble dealing with amplified music, such as rock ’n’
roll, which in today’s world makes its proponents seem
old-fogeyish. After all, what is the “absolute sound” of
a Fender Stratocaster or Telecaster? By the same token,
will a speaker that delivers the whomp of a Fender
Precision bass guitar as it sounds at a rock concert via
a Marshall stack also do justice to the pitches, timbres,
and dynamics of an unamplified cello or doublebass? For
that matter, will an “accurate” system tend to make both
Fender bass and cello sound a bit too cold and analytical,
like an unretouched glamour shot?
There is no single answer to these (and a zillion other)
questions that will satisfy all music lovers, which is
precisely why I try to take the biases of different kinds
of listeners into account whenever I write a review. The
way I see it most of us fall into one of three basic groups:
what I call the “absolute sound” listeners (who prefer
music played by acoustical instruments recorded in a real
space, and gear that makes those instruments—no matter
how well or poorly they were recorded—sound more like
“the real thing”); the “fidelity to mastertapes” listeners
(who want their music, acoustical or electronic, to sound
exactly as good or as bad, as lifelike or as phony as the
recording, engineering, and mastering allow); and the “as
you like it” listeners (who care less about the absolute
sound of acoustical instruments in a real space or about
fidelity to mastertapes and simply want their music to
sound some form of “good,” which is to say exciting,
beautiful, forgiving, non-fatiguing). Though I think these
groupings are valid, I also think that no listener is purely
one type or another, i.e., the fidelity to mastertapes listener
also wants his music to sound like the real thing, when the
recording allows; the absolute sound listener wants his music
to sound beautiful, when the music or orchestration allows; the
“as you like it” listener puts excitement and beauty ahead
of fidelity to sources, but is not at all unhappy when those
sources also sound like the real thing as he defines it. What
I haven’t been as clear about, perhaps, is where I stand in
this triumvirate—and why.
I stated my opinion on this crucial topic about twenty
years ago when I wrote a book about RCA recordings,
and in spite of occasional forays into other kinds of
listening I haven’t really changed my mind. Since The
RCA Bible has been out of print for a very long time, let
me quote what I had to say way back when:
“How much of the ‘absolute sound’ of an orchestra
does a microphone really capture? Well, it’s a fact that
microphones differ significantly from the response
of the human ear. Throughout the fifties and into the
sixties Mercury Records, for instance, used German
microphones (Telefunken 201’s and Neumann M 50’s)
with a rising high end. Are Mercury’s ‘living presence’
recordings [from Watford Town Hall] actual transcriptions
of the sound of the LSO with Dorati at the helm, or
are they the products of hot mikes—ones that added a
little upper-midrange sheen and bite to the LSO strings,
winds, and brass—or are they some incalculable blend
of both?
COVER STORY
the absolute sound July/August 2011 93
94 July/August 2011 the absolute sound
“Well, you’d have to have been at the Watford Town Hall to
know for sure. And even then, you’d have to have been sitting
where the microphones were placed. And since you don’t hear
in three channels mixed down to two and your chair’s not tall
enough to put you where the mike heads were located and your
ears have a different frequency balance and directional pattern
than mikes, you’d be hearing sounds that were different from
those which the microphones recorded. How different? The
question is unanswerable. On the basis of a recording we can
never know what the LSO ‘really’ sounded like on a particular
afternoon, on a particular piece of music. All we can know is
what the tape heads recorded.”
Twenty years on, I stand by what I wrote. For me high fidelity
means fidelity not to the absolute sound and not to some idealized
sound but to the sound of the mastertapes, which still seems to
me to be the one and only “truth” we’ve got. That this truth is
inevitably a compromise that will be further compromised in
playback is simply the way the recording/playback process works.
To achieve high fidelity as I define it means that the
loudspeakers and everything else in the playback chain need to
“disappear” as sound sources. To accomplish this, they must
be neutral, transparent, high in resolution, seamless in top-tobottom
coherence, low in distortion, and capable of a high degree
of realism rather than romance. As beguiling as such things can
sometimes sound, pieces of gear that impose a beauteous or
exciting or forgiving sonic template on the presentation—and,
thus, don’t disappear—are, in spite of any other virtues, finally
not for me. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t or shouldn’t be for
you. I have no argument with friends and colleagues who prefer
a less “neutral” component, either because they think a more
bespoke presentation makes music more like the real thing (as,
for example, those “absolute sound” types who eq their systems
to roll off the treble and/or boost the bass—or who prefer
equipment that effectively does the same thing because of builtin
dips and boosts in frequency response) or because they think
a romantic presentation makes recorded music more attractive
and, well, “musical.”
What I do have an argument with is calling such presentations
“high fidelity.” By my lights anything that makes you more aware
of the way sources are being colored and distorted by your system
is, ipso facto, less of a true high-fidelity component and more of
a tone control. I don’t want to hear my equipment automatically
adding virtues or subtracting flaws from every record (even
from records that benefit by such additions and subtractions); I
want to hear what is on the recording, good, bad, or indifferent,
because, as I just argued, the recording is the one indisputable
truth that stereo systems can be faithful to. The way I see it,
if you’re unhappy with the sound of the LPs and CDs you’re
playing back, then don’t try to correct the problems with your
stereo system. Instead, go out and buy better records.
My position has had certain undeniable consequences when
it comes to the kind of playback gear I prefer and how I set
it up. While as a reviewer I’ve recommended any number of
different kinds of loudspeakers for different kinds of listeners
(and was sincere in these recommendations), as a civilian I’ve
always owned electrostats, planars, and (occasionally) twoways.
Why? Because they were (and in many respects still are)
the lowest-distortion, lowest-coloration, highest-resolution,
most transparent-to-sources, least-present-in-their-own-right
transducers—the “highest-fidelity” speakers, if you will, by my
standard of high fidelity.
Yes, my preferences have always entailed major sonic tradeoffs,
particularly in low-end response and dynamic range on
fortissimo passages. However, because I prefer electrostats, planars,
and two-ways does not mean I don’t care about bass. What I don’t
like isn’t the bottom octaves; it’s what typical dynamic woofers
in typical noisy enclosures do to the bottom octaves. In most
listening rooms, such drivers sound powerful, all right, but they
also almost inevitably sound ill-defined in pitch, grossly distorted
in dynamic scale (lumping up in the midbass because of the
way those woofers excite themselves, their enclosures, the other
drivers, and the room), steeply rolled off in 20-40Hz range, and
relatively veiled in the mid and upper octaves because of the
group delay and break-up modes of those big cone woofs. It’s
all well and good to say that a Fender bass or a Noonan drumkit
requires a speaker with “slam” to sound like the “real thing”; it’s
quite another to ignore the cost of the dynamic distortion, group
delay, and lumpy frequency response that so often accompanies
speakers with such “slam.”
It is because the bass response of large, full-range, multiway
dynamic loudspeakers is generally so problematical—so far from
“high fidelity” as I’ve defined it—that I’ve tended to steer clear of
these beasts. Better to live without low bass than with distorted
and exaggerated bass. Indeed, outside of the Rockport Hyperion
that I reviewed about twelve years ago, I hadn’t come across a
big cone speaker that I was tempted to live with until I reviewed
the $90k Magico M5. Here, for once, was a big multiway that
seemed to have the transparency, low-distortion, near-seamless
octave-to-octave balance, and “disappearing act” of a ’stat or
really good two-way, with the added benefit of standard-settingly
well-integrated deep bass and dynamic range limited only by the
amount of power you could feed it. At the time, I thought the
M5 was, overall, the best loudspeaker I’d reviewed.
Not that I thought the M5 was perfect. Other speakers (planars
and ’stats) were more detailed, particularly at low levels; other
speakers (cones and hybrids) were louder and more “exciting” in
the midbass; other speakers (particularly ribbons) had a bit more
air and life and transient speed in the midband and treble; and
other speakers (particularly ’stats) were lower in grain. Still and
all, I found it hard to conceive of another truly full-range speaker
that would outdo this one in fidelity to sources or, when those
sources were first-rate, in realism. But…I was wrong.

bombaywalla schrieb:

My 2-ch was different & a lot more detailed & I felt that was incorrect. Hence I got started thinking along similar lines as Romy - what am I trying to achieve with my 2-ch? is it music or is it sound?

Interesting BW, are you already thinking of modifying your setup ?

I don’t want to hear my equipment automatically adding virtues or subtracting flaws from every record (even from records that benefit by such additions and subtractions); I want to hear what is on the recording, good, bad, or indifferent, because, as I just argued, the recording is the one indisputable truth that stereo systems can be faithful to.

He missed the case where equipments subtract virtues and add flaws which is equally probable. These are the type of "neutral" gears which sound bland, dry, unexciting or say in one word neutral as defined by Amp_Nut. By not considering this case it seems to me, either the author clearly wants to err on the dry side (erring is inevitable) or wants to support that phenomena to make a case for these speakers in his review..either way it is

I agree with Bombaywalla's definition of accuracy. IMO if a CD is not musical (by the virtue of its recording or content or whatever) it cannot sound musical on any "music" system period! That is the reason pink noise doesnt sound musical on any system in the world. If there is anything musical or worth enjoying it should come out on a truly accurate system better than a less accurate system.

Hi AN,
In the last few months I actually got myself an alternate (Vinyl ) setup
The idea behind this was to focus on Musicality and the "old Way"of listening to music.
-the TT is a lenco L75 on a 12 KG Birchwood ply plinth
-an old school Linn Akito2B arm
-an old school Nagaoka MP30 cartridge
-Virens tube based Phono

The idea was to listen to old hindi (70s/80s) music along with any other calssic gems. i also managed to get myself a couple of Dire straits/floyds and rainbows recording.

What i find is when it comes to resolution/imaging and even high frequency extension the Digital rig is far superior.

But when it comes to some part of the music, the Vinyl rig is really not too bad. in fact i could easily live with it. in hindi oldies it is Incomparable..the Vinyl is far better but then that is perhaps due to the fact that the CD recording itself Sucks.
But some albums like Bros in Arms, the sound from the Vinyl is far better in musical wholsomeness..despite me having a US CD pressing and the the cd having more details.
I do have some common recordings of Simon and Garfunkle/Fleetwood mac and John Denver and ill be checkin the differences out a lot more. the significant learning for me has been that in the Bass department the Vinyl is Outstanding eg the quality of the sound of drums is far better.

of course i do not want to make it a CD Vs Vinyl thing, the point is that i seem to enjoy to listen to the "wholesome" sound rather than details/soundstaging etc.

it has been an interesting take on things for me..cosidering I thought I could never stand the pops/clicks/ noise floor level, I seem to enjoy the music a lot more Despite all that ! Anyway Ill give it some time to see if i feel the same after a few more months

[quote="abhi.pani]
That is the reason pink noise doesnt sound musical on any system in the world. If there is anything musical or worth enjoying it should come out on a truly accurate system better than a less accurate system.[/quote]
Now this is a system id love to hear am sure even britney Spears may sound good on that !!

I have some comments on some of these “absolute elements or camps “which reviewers like these stresses upon.

If a gear is designed to reproduce what is on the mastertape, can it not sound musical ? Can it not reproduce the sound of acoustic (i.e., unamplified) instruments as they are heard in life in a concert or recital hall?

I think these are not mutually exclusive at all. I strongly feel that many of these “camps “have been purposefully created by crafty marketing teams to sell bland and dry gear in the name of neutral and sweet and mushy gear in the name of musical and so on…….Or these camps came to being in the natural course of things because of the way music reproduction gear have evolved over a period of time. It is just the way things are. Not the way it should be.

abhi.pani schrieb:

bombaywalla schrieb: My 2-ch was different & a lot more detailed & I felt that was incorrect. Hence I got started thinking along similar lines as Romy - what am I trying to achieve with my 2-ch? is it music or is it sound? Interesting BW, are you already thinking of modifying your setup ?

not as yet, AP.

square_wave schrieb:

I have some comments on some of these “absolute elements or camps “which reviewers like these stresses upon. If a gear is designed to reproduce what is on the mastertape, can it not sound musical ? Can it not reproduce the sound of acoustic (i.e., unamplified) instruments as they are heard in life in a concert or recital hall?

I think that these might be somewhat exclusive, square_wave for the following reasons: to reproduce sounds in your house setting equal to concert hall/life-like, your system needs a lot of amplification power (we are talking many 100s of watts & even in the 1000W range) & speakers that can handle this sort of power (which tend to be very large footprint speakers). OTOH, a modest system can reproduce what's on the mastertape but at much more modest in-home listening volume levels. Both systems can sound musical but might not give you both of your above cited attributes at the same time.

square_wave schrieb:

I think these are not mutually exclusive at all. I strongly feel that many of these “camps “have been purposefully created by crafty marketing teams to sell bland and dry gear in the name of neutral and sweet and mushy gear in the name of musical and so on…….Or these camps came to being in the natural course of things because of the way music reproduction gear have evolved over a period of time. It is just the way things are. Not the way it should be.

you're right about the marketing - there is a lot of trash gear in the marketplace that is being touted as very worthy of its price. There is a lot of brain-washing, glossy & pretty picture printing in the audio magazines to advertise mediocre gear as something better than what it actually is. An informed & educated listener is the best defence against such hazing from the audio industry but then there are several people (some of whom I know) who like this mushy tube sound & the overly sweet/honey sound of tubes! What to do?! these people are on the serious look-out for gear that sounds that way. Some manuf will rise to meet that demand & then will try to make a living by creating volume & that's when the marketing hype begins.....

@bombaywalla,

I think the reviewer was segregating different audio equipment into various buckets .

Should “high fidelity” components,

as HP argued, aim to reproduce the sound of acoustic
(i.e., unamplified) instruments as they are heard in life in
a concert or recital hall?

or

In a significant variant of the
absolute sound approach, should they reproduce precisely
what was recorded on the disc, whether that sounds
like the absolute sound (as it ideally should) or not?

or

should they aim at something else again, something far
less prescriptive and more personal? Should they simply
(or perhaps not so simply) consistently please whoever
listens to them?

My question is:
Do designers put gear into various buckets like these by purposeful design ?

Do these buckets really exist ?

To me it sounds a bit illogical. If a high fidelity component can reproduce the sound of acoustic instruments as they are heard in a recital hall, can it not reproduce precisely what was recorded on the disc ?

What is this absolute sound ? Do designers really design gear to sound as envisioned in the “Absolute sound” manuscript ? I mean by purposeful design ?

If designers make equipments to make em sound like what acoustical instruments sound in a space, what do they do for electrified instruments or electronic instruments ? I think I will discount that bucket 100%.

To make systems true to the recording I can sort of believe but who is to know what a recording actually sounds like ? Every system is colored in some aspect and one persons neutral system is another's lifeless system etc etc.

Finally I do believe that if you buy a system, live with it for 5 years, you have achieved a lot and that in itself is the worthiest achievement on your part and the designers.
That's my simple trend of thought.

Manek