The Importance of Defining Goals, Priorities, and Preferences for the Reproduction of Recorded Music in the Home
I propose a $64k question: What are an audiophile’s goals for their hi-fi system(s)? I believe this is a personal choice. Examples of goals include (i.e., by way of example, and not by way of limitation):
- Recreate the experience of attending a live concert. (I.e., engaging in attentive listening, and falling under a spell cast by the music, in which the listener has the illusion that they’re at the live concert.)
- Sounds good. E.g., an in-home experience that makes you want to dance – or just makes you smile.
- Show off to friends, by rattling the windows. (For some, this involves almost causing structural damage to their house.)
- Some want their hi-fi to reproduce ear-bleed volume levels associated with a live rock concert.
- For a Hollywood movie, recreate the sound of a buffalo stampede, or a passing freight train or helicopter.
- Unobtrusive background music, usually while the listener is focused on something else. Some people may have as a goal a pleasant low-volume-level simulacrum that is appropriate for an apartment where one must be considerate of neighbors. (For some people, a decent-quality clock radio suffices for this purpose.)
- Some like lots of “sparkle” on the high end.
- Some want to reproduce the natural timbre of orchestral instruments.
- Some want to reproduce the dynamic range of a large orchestra. (OTOH, for someone who listens mostly to chamber music or a jazz trio, dynamic range may not be as important.)
- Some may want to reproduce the lowest pedal notes of a pipe organ. OTOH, for someone who listens to folk music, the ability to reproduce powerful deep bass may not be a priority.
- Etc.
For music reproduced via a hi-fi system, I think that the bottom line is the sound that arrives at the listener’s ear (i.e., in their listening room). What would it mean if someone were to declare a goal that what they hear from their hi-fi be “accurate”? I’ll paraphrase Einstein: “I should load my conscience with grave sins against the sacred spirit of lucidity were I to formulate the aims of sound reproduction in this way, without serious reflection and detailed explanations. Let us proceed to disclose these sins.”
What the listener hears is based on many factors, including the recording, various components such as a front-end equipment, amp, speakers, the acoustics of the listening room, their mood, their consumption of adult beverages, etc.
An amplifier can undergo unit testing (i.e., testing of one component which is part of a larger system) to measure various aspects of its performance. It can be meaningful to discuss an amp’s accuracy against specific parameters being measured (e.g., a specific distortion measurement). However – IMO - this does not necessarily ensure that the sound that arrives at the listener’s ears satisfies the listener’s goals for their hi-fi system.
IMO, the genre of music is an important factor that influences an audiophile’s goals.
- Those of us who often attend live performances of classical concerts (where there is no use of electronics) know how “natural” orchestral instruments sound. (The same is true of some other genres such as some jazz, folk, big band, etc.)
- OTOH, what is the natural timber of a digital audio workstation (DAW) software plug-in?
I listen mostly to classical music. My goal for the sound quality of recorded classical music played via my home hi-fi systems is to experience the illusion that I’m in the symphony hall or opera house where classical music was performed live, with no electronics involved (i.e., no sound reinforcement system), and for inevitable deviations to sound pleasant vs. unpleasant – to my ears.
Following is what I mean when I assert that the classical concerts that I attend feature “natural music”, and that the live performance provides a clear benchmark for sound quality:
Classical Symphonic Music vs. Pop Musicians Performing with Orchestra vs. Outdoor Performances
My local symphony orchestra performs a Classical Series, plus a number of “pop concerts”, and a few outdoor concerts.
For the Classical Series – which involves classical music performed live in the symphony hall, there is no use of a sound reinforcement system. I’ve confirmed with the symphony’s Executive Director that the microphones that can be seen hanging above the stage are used solely for recording, NOT for amplifying the sound in the symphony hall. My local symphony hall has world-class acoustics, and the natural sound is amazing.
OTOH, when pop music is performed in the same hall, electronics are often used. An example is when a pop singer uses a microphone to sing. And for some pop concerts, electric guitars and/or electronic organs are sometimes used.
And, on the rare occasion when the symphony performs an outdoor concert (e.g., outdoor Memorial Day concert), then of course a sound reinforcement system must be used.
Opera vs. Musicals
One of the hallmarks of opera is that the singers do NOT use microphones. And the orchestra does NOT use a sound reinforcement system. No electronics are involved when an opera is performed by my local opera company in my local opera house.
OTOH, musicals performed in the same hall typically involve singers using microphones.
And, of course, on the rare occasion when an opera singer performs the National Anthem at the baseball park, then they must sing into a microphone.
Chamber Music
IME, chamber music performances generally do not involve a sound reinforcement system. (I’ve been to one concert by a string quartet that used sound reinforcement because the venue had poor acoustics. I won’t attend another concert at that venue.)
What is the “work of art”? For classical music, the artists are the composer, the conductor, and the musicians - and IMO the “work of art” was the live performance (i.e., musicians performing together in the symphony hall). I’m using the term “work of art” in terms of what represents a benchmark for the sound quality of the recording when played via a home hi-fi system, not in terms of Intellectual Property law. (The same may be true of other genres that involve natural music performed live, such as some big-band, some jazz, some folk, etc.)
With all due respect to Hans Beekhuyzen, I flatly reject his assertion that “it all starts with the producer and the recording engineer”. For the classical music I love, the producer and the recording engineer are not the artists. (Perhaps I’m unfairly picking apart his statement, in which case I apologize.) IMO, the role of the producer and the recording engineer is to not “muck up” the sound of the live performance in the symphony hall – i.e., do as little harm as possible. While I’m not an expert on recording practices for classical music, I’m not naïve – I imagine that there might be some use of software tools. IMO, the engineers should use a “light touch”, and any editing of the sound should not be conspicuous. The good news is that I own many modern hi-res classical recordings that IMO have excellent, natural-sounding audio quality – and more importantly are very enjoyable. (Pop music is apparently a completely different story …)
Prior to COVID-19 shutting down all non-essential businesses, I attended approximately 30 classical concerts per season. For those of us who regularly attend live classical performances, we have a pretty good memory of what a violin should sound like – independent of whether we were at a particular recording session. We have a pretty good memory of what a string quartet should sound like – and a pretty good memory of how a symphony orchestra should sound – when performing live with no sound reinforcement system. (Recognizing some variance due to the acoustics of the venue, and the listener’s seat location.)
My memory isn’t perfect, and therefore my methodology for assessing the audio quality of my hi-fi systems isn’t perfect. Nonetheless, for classical music, my benchmark for the sound quality of music reproduced via one of my home hi-fi systems is based on my memory of the sound of classical music performed live in its intended venue. I want the inevitable imperfections in the sound from my home-hi-fi to sound pleasant vs. unpleasant. One of my priorities is for the timbre of the orchestra instruments to sound natural. And I want my hi-fi systems to achieve dynamic range that approaches the live concert experience. While my criteria for assessing the quality of the sound from my hi-fi systems isn’t perfect, there is no “circle of confusion” that Hans Beekhuyzen mentions.
OTOH, apparently, some people equate a CD or LP with the work of art, because for some pop music there never was a live-performance.
Consider these questions: What is meant by “accuracy” in sound reproduction? What is meant by “true high-fidelity audio”? (I own several late 1930’s era TOTL tube radios that are “High Fidelity”. It says so right on the front.)
For what genre of music is “convincing 3D fields of sound” and “great imaging” and “spaciousness” relevant? IME, from a mid-hall seat in the symphony hall, the sound is blended by the hall, and there is no pinpoint localization of individual instruments. IME, there are other facets of audio quality that are far more relevant to the reproduction of large-scale classical music, such as dynamic range, frequency range, and natural timbre. This is an example of how an audiophile’s preferred genre of music influences their goals.
Does science currently understand every aspect of human hearing as it relates to the enjoyment of music? (I don’t think so.) Do technologists have tests and specs that define every aspect of human enjoyment of music? (I don’t think so.) And most importantly: What is your benchmark for the quality of sound you are hearing from your home hi-fi system? (Someone else’s benchmark may not be relevant to the music you listen to, and may not be relevant based on your priorities.)
Ask yourself: For the recorded music you will listen to via your home hi-fi system, are you concerned with achieving sound quality that is “musical”, or are you concerned with a theoretical definition of “accurate”? Does someone else’s definition of “accurate” make sense to you?
I regard my hi-fi systems as being “dialed in” when I completely forget about the equipment, and lose track of time, and become completely engrossed in the music, and I can listen for hours without “listener fatigue”. I regard my hi-fi systems as being “dialed in” when I feel like I’m in the symphony hall, or opera house (or other venue for chamber music, such as a church).
I mostly rely on my ears. (My ears are routinely “recalibrated” by listening to live classical music.) I rely on my memory of what I heard at a live classical concert. Clearly relying on my memory of live music has limitations, and therefore my approach has limitations. With that said – IMO - every approach to optimizing a hi-fi system is imperfect.
OTOH - IMO, there is nothing wrong with an audiophile to want their in-home experience when listening to recorded music to “sound good” – which could involve – based on their personal preference -ear-bleed high frequencies, or thumping bass, or pinpoint spatial placement of instruments - regardless of what happened (or never happened) in a live performance. Or, countless other highly personal criteria could be part of an individual audiophile’s goals.
I respect that different people like different music. I am NOT implying that one genre is better than another. What I am saying is that - IMO – the concepts of “high fidelity reproduction”, and “accurate reproduction” – and what “sounds good” - means different things to different people, partly based on the music genre they listen to, and partly based on personal preferences – and therefore different people may have different goals.
In summary, IMO there’s nothing wrong with an audiophile to want their in-home experience when listening to recorded music to “sound good” (“constructivism”), and there’s nothing wrong with another audiophile wanting to recreate a live concert experience (“realism”). In the real world, for many people it’s inevitably a combination of the two, which is why I say that my goal for recordings of classical music is to create the illusion (for me) that I’m in the concert hall (i.e., create an illusion that I’m hearing the original art), and
for the inevitable deviations to sound pleasant, vs. unpleasant (to my ears). Because, IMO, no hi-fi system is perfect, and therefore the audiophile must choose sonic trade-offs.
Even for the audiophile whose goal is “realism”, it is inevitable that some level of “constructivism” or “fulfillment of desires” is introduced. It seems to me that low distortion is a necessary-though-not sufficient condition for an enjoyable listening experience. IMO – there’s nothing wrong with “salt and pepper to taste” – i.e., whatever causes the listener the most enjoyment of the music they love.
I agree with Hans Beekhuyzen’s statement that: “Recordings are supposed to please, fascinate, and entertain the consumer, and not the man with the scope”.
Bottom line: I think that it’s important for each audiophile to define their goals for their hi-fi system. I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer for someone’s goals. Each audiophile’s goals will vary based on personal preference, and based on the genre(s) of music they listen to. To each their own.
