Thoughts on the high end....

[stuartk]

looking for. To me, it is about the music. The detail and effects you describe don't exist in live music and are, to me, just a distraction from what I value in the recording: The artistry of the songwriter and the performers.

I would agree that live music at a concert hall does not display the same kind of detail that is often heard with a good stereo system.

The recording process isn't always very good at capturing the whole soundfield of a concert in a large hall. It often tends to focus in on specific things chosen by the recording engineer.

So the detail you don't hear at a live concert may well be present in a recording. A good playback system will reproduce that detail.

You may not want to hear that detail, but it's part of the recording. A playback system that gives you the sound you hear at a live concert is not true to the recording. You may like it better that way, but it isn't accurate.

Perhaps you have chosen the wrong hobby? You might be better off spending the money you would spend on stereo gear and recordings on concert tickets.

 

[jmathers]

I know the original post did not say this but to just clarify things: In October 2007, AD was NOT referrring to the Naim's sound in comparison to the Subaru system. Here is the quote:

"As recently as two weeks ago, I was moved close to tears by a lo-fi recording—Martin Newell's "I Will Haunt Your Room"—played over the standard-equipment CD player in my 2001 Subaru. As recently as five days ago, I was bored out of my underpants by the same song played through a $3500 CD player, a $6000 integrated amplifier, ca $2000 loudspeakers, and various tarted-up cables. The total cost exceeded the current used value of my car, whose ability to do more than just play music requires little in the way of discussion."

In fact, he goes on in the article to praise the Naim CD555, highly. He calls it "the most emotionally convincing digital source component I've had in my system." Note his emphasis in the article though on musicality and emotional involvement, a common theme in most of Art's writings on audio. Good stuff.

Here's the article:

http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/207naim/index5.html

Jeff

 

[stuartk]

In fact, he goes on in the article to praise the Naim CD555, highly. He calls it "the most emotionally convincing digital source component I've had in my system." Note his emphasis in the article though on musicality and emotional involvement, a common theme in most of Art's writings on audio. Good stuff.

I feel that I get emotional involvement from a good performance and recording. My stereo system should just accurately reproduce that.

An emotionally involving performance tends to be emotionally involving no matter what I use to pay it back though.

I don't know what "musicality" is, so I can't really discuss it.

I do know that, more often than not, my current system lets me immerse myself in the music. Detail is there if I wish to concentrate on it. Otherwise I can just fade right into the performance. It's completely involving, and a different sort of consciousness than what you experience normally.

 

[matel]

I think it's a very subtle thing how a voice is delivered through a recording, through a stereo to your ears.
And yes I can't explain it but some sources seem make you very aware of the emotional expressiveness a voice and mysteriously with other sources it's seems to be slightly missing. It may be a small thing but it means the world to me.

 

[matel]

I'm open to that possibility. I will be checking this out for the next, oh, 50 years or so....
And probably choosing more involving gear along the way..

 

[JBN]

Yup like changing from Proacs Response 2.5 to Dynacos A-25 xl. Go figure These little dynas made me take a huge loss but big musical gain.

I have here in my living room 2 pair of bookshelf speakers that contradicts this statement and Big Eriks. There still musical products to be had in the new market you just need to listen for them.

 

[Bigerik]

I have here in my living room 2 pair of bookshelf speakers that contradicts this statement and Big Eriks. There still musical products to be had in the new market you just need to listen for them.

I don't think I ever said that there are no musical products in the high end. Companies like Audio Note, Quad, etc. make lots of great sounding, very musical gear. However, I think they are more the exception than the rule.

 

[dogscanskate]

I have here in my living room 2 pair of bookshelf speakers that contradicts this statement and Big Eriks. There still musical products to be had in the new market you just need to listen for them.

Hey Tom, there are great speakers manufactured today that are outstanding. I'm lusting for some Kudo cardeas 10 or Neat standamount in their ultimatum series. The price is prohibitive though. Is there anything wrong with vintage gear that seems to defy the effects of time? I don't think so. I'm not one to debate the pros and cons concerning vintage versus new gear. I don't care when or where products are made so long as they provide me with enjoyment and draw me into the music.

 

[JohnVF]

Maybe there should be high-end (and low end). There should just be good and bad.

Of course, then it's up to you what is good and what is bad....

 

[KeninDC]

Facts:

I have vintage sources (SL 1800 TT for analog and a Yamaha CDX 550 for digital) hooked up to a "Modern H-Fi" ModWright tube input/Class A SS output linestage w/ Krell Class A SS amplification. I use B&W speakers.

The Krell was my first "modern" upgrade and replaced a Yamaha CR 2020 which had replaced a CR 1020.

Opinion:

I am pleased with my upgrades. Krell amplification is musical to me. In comparison to the vintage CR 2020, it is much more fluid and liquid. By this, I mean the musical notes don't just get amplified and then quickly get replaced by the next note - they have time to finish/trail off. To me, that's what I hear at a live show. With the Krell, the music appears less "smeared." Perhaps that's the "detail" we are all discussing, but I like it.

I don't expect to replace the Yamaha CDX until it breaks. I played the West German London CD of the Stones' "Aftermath" (rumored to have been mastered by MFSL) and it was almost identical to my original UK DECCA ffss LP pressing of the same title. Since my CD/LP listening ratio is 1/9, I don't plan to replace the CDP.

As for my LP source, I can't imagine how most of my LPs can sound any better, but I am curious to upgrade and find out. I fear that I will need to spend at least $1400 to get better sound than my vintage technics TT ($10 at my church's rummage sale plus a new Grado Blue cart and upgraded headshell leads). Based on my recent amp/linestage upgrades, I'm willing to take the risk that I will enjoy my music more with an upgraded TT.

Is some of my enjoyment tied to the fact I have upgraded and it darn well better sound better? Likely.

Ken

 

[gusten]

However a system that excels at detail retrieval can be smooth and graceful if the recoding is well done. And a problems in a recording should be noticeable. However this doesn't mean that the music is unlistenable, it is just flawed. What I have experienced is that anytime my system moves towards to a "forgiving" sound I hate it. I want to hear as much of the recoding as possible, and as accurately as my system can get it.

Regards
Mister Pig

Mister Pig
If you also mean lowest possible distortion by detail retrieval I agree with You.
I have always found that low distortion is the only way to make the music sound better. If we hypothetically imagine that we can retrieve exact the information that´s on the record with no distortion, then we have the ultimate sound. Every record we play can not sound better. Will it sound musical? Well that is of course depending on the information on the record.
But what it certainly will do is showing the music as it should be showed.
There is no way I can accept the TTs and amps as musical, they must only act by what they should do; in most cases just amplifying a signal with no added distortion.
/gusten

 

[JohnVF]

This is just something to think about. I don't stand on one side or the other when it comes to detail or no detail. I just know what I like when I hear it. Sometimes that means detail, sometimes that means something else is impressing me...

Suppose the whole recording process is flawed. I'm not talking just one recording, I mean the whole technology for capturing sound with microphones. Suppose those microphones, and mixing board/comprssers/etc, because of how they work, add something to the original sound that wasn't there in the live performance.

Now suppose you play these recordings back through a system that isn't perfect, but is what some would call 'musical'. This imperfect system isn't an exact reproducer of that flawed recording. It smooths out what the microphone picks up, essentially helping erase what the microphone and mixing board added to the sound. It adds something that isn't on the recording by its inability to play every detail magnified by the recording process. It isn't true to the recording, but to some ears sounds more like the live performances that they are intimately familiar with.

I don't know any of this to be true, but I do have experience in recording studios and I know that what is happening in a room is often not all that much like what you hear played back on the monitors. It can be really close sometimes, other times it's very different (sometimes on purpose, of course).

 

[Mr. Lin]

This is just something to think about. I don't stand on one side or the other when it comes to detail or no detail. I just know what I like when I hear it. Sometimes that means detail, sometimes that means something else is impressing me...

Suppose the whole recording process is flawed. I'm not talking just one recording, I mean the whole technology for capturing sound with microphones. Suppose those microphones, and mixing board/comprssers/etc, because of how they work, add something to the original sound that wasn't there in the live recording

Now suppose you play these recordings back through a system that isn't perfect, but is what some would call 'musical'. This imperfect system isn't an exact reproducer of that flawed recording. It smooths out what the microphone picks up, essentially helping erase what the microphone and mixing board added to the sound. It adds something that isn't on the recording by its inability to play every detail magnified by the recording process. It isn't true to the recording, but to some ears sounds more like the live performances that they are intimately familiar with.

I don't know any of this to be true, but I do have experience in recording studios and I know that what is happening in a room is often not all that much like what you hear played back on the monitors. It can be really close sometimes, other times it's very different (sometimes on purpose, of course).

You're really onto something here John, albeit something that's hard to explain and ultimately ends up being very subjective, I think. Not to get too off track, but what you described is exactly what I've been experiencing lately recording from CD to cassette. To my surprise, I've ended up with tapes that, to me at least, sound noticeably better than the source CD. This seems counter-intuitive and contrary to what the science behind it says, but low and behold, these tapes have that "musicality" element that was somewhat lacking on the CD - so perhaps the tape is not true to the source, but then again perhaps it's somehow changing something that shouldn't have been there to begin with. All conjecture, except the part about what I hear, which I'm sure about, and I'm not alone on this one.

 

[JohnVF]

I just think there's this strange obsession with the source material...it's worshiped as if it could have no flaws, and we must amplify it exactly as it is, and that's the only way to get to true 'hi fi'.

So why is it that when people, many of them with backgrounds in music or extensive experience with live performance, say "this system sounds unnatural" or "unmusical" people jump all over them and say things like "that's because it has a flat response and lacks distortion" and "any distortion isn't true to the source." Well...sorry to say this but the 'source' isn't true to the source. There is no such thing as a perfect recording. I can understand the argument that you can't match your system to every performance so why not start with something at least true to the recording (flat, low distortion). But at the same time, it might be that there are certain things that subtle distortion glosses over...certain things that aren't in the original performance to begin with that, when blurred over, bring a recording closer in sound to the original performance).

I'm only going by what I hear, and that's just not good enough for a lot of people and that's fine. I'll still go by what I hear. It's not that I do or don't trust my ears...it's that I HEAR with my ears. It's all the judgement I want to have to deal with in my own system.

Tubes were a revelation to me. I bought my first tube system a little more than a year ago and I couldn't believe how much more real everything sounded. I don't care if it wasn't distortion free and all of that..it sounded real, and I'd never heard recorded music sound so real to me. It had more to do with the timbre of the instruments and voice. If it is distortion, it is beautiful distortion that I love.

This isn't an argument for or against the high end. I just think some gear reproduces sound, while other gear reproduces music. I think cost (often) has little to do with it.

 

[Mr. Lin]

I just think there's this strange obsession with the source material...it's worshiped as if it could have no flaws, and we must amplify it exactly as it is, and that's the only way to get to true 'hi fi'.

So why is it that when people, many of them with backgrounds in music or extensive experience with live performance, say "this system sounds unnatural" or "unmusical" people jump all over them and say things like "that's because it has a flat response and lacks distortion" and "any distortion isn't true to the source." Well...sorry to say this but the 'source' isn't true to the source. There is no such thing as a perfect recording. I can understand the argument that you can't match your system to every performance so why not start with something at least true to the recording (flat, low distortion). But at the same time, it might be that there are certain things that subtle distortion glosses over...certain things that aren't in the original performance to begin with that, when blurred over, bring a recording closer in sound to the original performance).

I'm only going by what I hear, and that's just not good enough for a lot of people and that's fine. I'll still go by what I hear. It's not that I do or don't trust my ears...it's that I HEAR with my ears. It's all the judgement I want to have to deal with in my own system.

Tubes were a revelation to me. I bought my first tube system a little more than a year ago and I couldn't believe how much more real everything sounded. I don't care if it wasn't distortion free and all of that..it sounded real, and I'd never heard recorded music sound so real to me. It had more to do with the timbre of the instruments and voice. If it is distortion, it is beautiful distortion that I love.

This isn't an argument for or against the high end. I just think some gear reproduces sound, while other gear reproduces music. I think cost (often) has little to do with it.

This is kind of funny, because I've been arguing basically the exact same thing with people very recently. Most recently, in fact, in this thread in the Music Forum where I brought up how I feel that some of the cassettes I've been making from CD sound better than the CD, and I also mentioned that tubes are distortion yet they sound better to many people.

By the way, I use a tube preamp in the chain when I record from CD to cassette. :thmbsp:

 

[mwicks]

It's all in the hiss!

Seriously though, I think a lot of people hear the hiss/surface noise of tapes/LPs and interpret it as "warmth". I've had a bit of this experience myself when listening to vinyl. I'd go back between CD and LP and with the CD would find the jarringly low level of noise sort of awkward. It's like surface noise can sometimes remind you that something is there (medium wise I mean), where the sound from a CD just kinda comes out of nothing. (please tell me that made sense to someone!)

 

[Njord Noatun]

I mean, didn't an SX-1250 come in at something like $3000 after inflation is adjusted for?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Inflation Calculator (pretty nifty little tool for all kinds of calculations!), today's MSRP of an SX-1250 would be (based upon a new price of $950 and a first sales year of 1976 [I don't know that either of these variables are 100% accurate]) $3,673.

 

[Bigerik]

I just think there's this strange obsession with the source material...it's worshiped as if it could have no flaws, and we must amplify it exactly as it is, and that's the only way to get to true 'hi fi'.

So why is it that when people, many of them with backgrounds in music or extensive experience with live performance, say "this system sounds unnatural" or "unmusical" people jump all over them and say things like "that's because it has a flat response and lacks distortion" and "any distortion isn't true to the source." Well...sorry to say this but the 'source' isn't true to the source. There is no such thing as a perfect recording. I can understand the argument that you can't match your system to every performance so why not start with something at least true to the recording (flat, low distortion). But at the same time, it might be that there are certain things that subtle distortion glosses over...certain things that aren't in the original performance to begin with that, when blurred over, bring a recording closer in sound to the original performance).

I'm only going by what I hear, and that's just not good enough for a lot of people and that's fine. I'll still go by what I hear. It's not that I do or don't trust my ears...it's that I HEAR with my ears. It's all the judgement I want to have to deal with in my own system.

Tubes were a revelation to me. I bought my first tube system a little more than a year ago and I couldn't believe how much more real everything sounded. I don't care if it wasn't distortion free and all of that..it sounded real, and I'd never heard recorded music sound so real to me. It had more to do with the timbre of the instruments and voice. If it is distortion, it is beautiful distortion that I love.

This isn't an argument for or against the high end. I just think some gear reproduces sound, while other gear reproduces music. I think cost (often) has little to do with it.

Excellent post.
I guess we all forget that stereo is basically an illusion. Using technology to make our ears think that there are musicians in the room with us. So, whatever sound makes the illusion the most real, or at least the most enjoyable to us, is obviously going to be "best".

 

[whoaru99]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Inflation Calculator (pretty nifty little tool for all kinds of calculations!), today's MSRP of an SX-1250 would be (based upon a new price of $950 and a first sales year of 1976 [I don't know that either of these variables are 100% accurate]) $3,673.

Not sure that the inflation calculators accurately reflect the today's cost of electronics.

Sure, you can buy receivers today for that much, or more, but there's a helluva lot more going in inside them.

 

[merrylander]

All I know is that I am sitting here listening to Tchiakovsky's Seranade for Strings and for an old CR-2040 and a pair of old NS-690s it does not get more musical than this.