are you really after High Fidelity?

[Ceptorman]

Dave Grohl has become a music powerhouse. His Sound City show was spectacular. He also has an HBO series called Foo Fighters Sonic Highways. It's a one hour series of shows focusing on a different city to record a song on their new album. The first episode was in Chicago. He shows the cities musical history and the punk scene from the 80s was talked about a lot, along with the original movement of blues of Muddy Waters.  It's a great show, this week they were was in Wash DC.

[russ69]

 

 

 I have never walked into a listening room and thought; "Geeze that sounds just like the philharmonic orchestra, right there in my room". It never happened and never will.

 

.... I have heard many instances of audio sounding "just like" a live orchestra -- although it usually does not.... 

I have heard some very fine systems in my time. The idea is to get a reasonable reproduction of recorded music and let your imagination fill in the missing parts. Every system has a weakness, so if you are a critical listener you will hear and know the weakness. You can't get around that but the whole idea is to get a satisfying system and that is good enough to create a decent allusion but it's never as good as the real thing. 

[Paducah Home Theater]

As for the original article, I was next to a symphony orchestra last night for the first time.  Some things were pretty standard as I used to play in high school band and know what a friggin trombone sounds like.  But, the wall of violins, goodness.  Mix in a playful oboe and a few delicate plucks of a harp and it's really quite complex.  That would be hard to reproduce correctly, but would be heavenly if you could.  I can better see what they're talking about now.  Lots of nuances and non-directional sound that just wouldn't be normal in a typical two channel setup. 

[Mallette]

As for the original article, I was next to a symphony orchestra last night for the first time.  Some things were pretty standard as I used to play in high school band and know what a friggin trombone sounds like.  But, the wall of violins, goodness.  Mix in a playful oboe and a few delicate plucks of a harp and it's really quite complex.  That would be hard to reproduce correctly, but would be heavenly if you could.  I can better see what they're talking about now.  Lots of nuances and non-directional sound that just wouldn't be normal in a typical two channel setup. 

 

Love it.  A wonderful description!

The two channel is enough crowd is largely made up of those who listen to synthetically produced music or don't get out to the real thing very often.  Real high fidelity IS hard to record and reproduce correctly, and it IS heavenly when you at least get close.

 

And it IS possible with current technology.  And anything less may be high quality reproduction, but it is not "high fidelity" in any sense of the word unless it's a recording made of instruments in an anechoic studio.

 

Dave

[CECAA850]

Dave, do you EVER read your PM's?

[Mallette]

As there are a variety of opinions on the Forum, as it should be, I want to modify my above statement.

 

One can define "high fidelity" at least two basic ways:

 

1. Fidelity to the original recording, which, of course, may be mono and even acoustic.

2. Fidelity to the original acoustic time/space event.

 

I always mean fidelity to the original event which is inclusive of "1". 

 

Dave

Edited November 20, 2014 by Mallette

[ChuckAb3]

 

Orchestra halls aren't exactly the only good sounding live venues either. I mean, do you know what things sound like in the balcony of the Ryman Auditorium? I do, it's awesome. Why is reproducing the unamplified sound of an orchestra hall the only goal worthy of their writing? I want to reproduce how Rodrigo y Gabriela sounded at the Ryman. Why exactly does that make me unworthy of buying their magazine? Ironically, if we set our system up so that it sounds exactly like what a good rock band in a good venue sounds like live, these guys would dismiss us as a lost cause seeking a fantasy-fulfillment system. Perhaps instead of isolating and shaming people with a passive-aggressive superiority complex'ish tone while actively persuading people to cancel their subscription if they don't fit in to the cool kids club, they could realize that different people like different sounds with different music, and try to help people be HAPPY, not be exactly like the writers as if they joined an exclusive club, which actually sounds more like a cult that has strict rules.

Perhaps the idea is that a sound reproduction system should faithfully reproduce that which is on the recording - nothing more, nothing less. 

 

I believe that the real problems start when audiophiles want things to "sound better [or different] than the source material itself".  That is the root of all this thrashing, IMHO.

 

Chris makes a good point. I can't count the number of times I've read posts from self-styled "audiophiles" on another well known forum gripe that gear (especially speakers) is too forward sounding, or "bright" or "fatiguing". They want something more muted or muffled it seems. While it's probably true that some gear distorts source material with brightness, etc., , I get more of an impression that most of these folks actually desire equipment which distorts the source in the opposite direction by muting it. That's particularly the impression given in discussions of horn loaded speakers. I love the sound my own instrument makes and I love the sound of a great orchestra in a good venue and the closer I get to that in recorded sound, the better I like it. It helps a lot to experience and appreciate what live music actually sounds like. (And, yes, it can be "bright" and even fatiguing at times!) Just my $.02. Cheers guys.

[Paducah Home Theater]

I can't count the number of times I've read posts from self-styled "audiophiles" on another well known forum gripe that gear (especially speakers) is too forward sounding, or "bright" or "fatiguing". They want something more muted or muffled it seems.

It took me a little while to get used to Klipsch in general as I was coming off of some muffled Wharfedales with soft dome tweeters. Everything sounded harsh, especially rock music. Now, everything else sounds dead and boring. Midbass is a little less exaggerated, which I suppose is "correct", but that's the only thing I miss at all.

However, I still agree with them on the cheaper offerings, the aluminum tweeter is kind of forward / bright / fatiguing, and that has nothing to do with wanting to go back to my old setup.

[wvu80]

I don't want my recordings to sound like live...I want them to sound better than live.

 

Is this possible? I say yes, and if anybody would like an example, I can provide it.  This according to my own experiences hearing specific live performances, then listening to the recordings of those live performances.

 

I just don't want to unnecessarily bore everybody with my war stories; I think I'm too wordy already. 

[Mallette]

This according to my own experiences hearing specific live performances, then listening to the recordings of those live performances.

 

This would be a commentary on:

 

1. The engineering

2. Your system

 

To say you want your recordings to sound "better than live" is to suggest that GIGO stands for "garbage in, gold out." 

 

Dave

[garyrc]

I get more of an impression that most of these folks actually desire equipment which distorts the source in the opposite direction by muting it. That's particularly the impression given in discussions of horn loaded speakers. I love the sound my own instrument makes and I love the sound of a great orchestra in a good venue and the closer I get to that in recorded sound, the better I like it

 

I agree that some High End folks seem to want veiled sound. 

[wvu80]

 

This according to my own experiences hearing specific live performances, then listening to the recordings of those live performances.

 

This would be a commentary on:

 

1. The engineering

2. Your system

 

To say you want your recordings to sound "better than live" is to suggest that GIGO stands for "garbage in, gold out." 

 

Dave

 

 

No, not garbage nor gold in, and certainly not garbage out.  In fact, quite the opposite, the recordings are incredible, in Blu-ray, professionally recorded live in competition.

 

I enjoy a genre called Drum and Bugle Corps,which is really like a marching band on steroids, but all B flat brass instruments and percussion.  This is best watched live, and a good seat would be on the 50 yard line, about 40 rows up.  From there things sound terrific, but you can't really hear all the nuances.  The Drum Corps International (DCI) World Championships are recorded on Blu-ray, and you can hear all the things in the recording you don't really hear from the seats.  Articulate snare drumming, you can hear all four voices tuba, baritones, mellophone and trumpet.  You can hear all the marimbas to the point you can hear if they are using rubber mallets or cloth mallets.

 

It's hard to capture the sound of 16 tubas, or 24 trumpets, but the sound on my Klipsch powered system is fantastic.  The stage is sometimes 100 yards wide, but the sound will pin you back in your seat.  These recordings capture that, and to really get it right, it needs to be played LOUD!

 

Blu-ray really shows off the power of the modern drum and bugle corps.  It has jazz band brass instrumentation, times 10 (80 brass).   Play this as loud as your system will allow to understand the impact.  Not in all ways, but in many ways, better than live. 

 

I knew I would not be able to explain it very well. 

 

Here is the beautiful intro to Scheherazade played by the pit of the Santa Clara Vanguard.  You can hear and see the four-mallet technique used by the marimba player, you can hear the timbre and tuning of the tympani.  The xylo's etc are front and center, just between the drum major and the brass, and when the horn line hits, wow!  The pit articulation is better on the recording, but you can't here that amount of detail from the seats.  You also can't imagine how loud the the horn line hit is unless you are sitting in front of them.  They can literally, make the ground shake.

 

Edited November 21, 2014 by wvu80

[Chris A]

"We seem to have come to a tacit agreement that it's no longer necessary, or even desirable, for a home music system to sound like the real thing. We speak in hushed and reverent tones about reproducing the ineffable beauty of music, when in fact much real music is harsh and vulgar and ugly. We design the all-important musical midrange out of our equipment in order to try—vainly, I might add—to recreate the illusion of three-dimensional space through what is essentially a two-dimensional reproducer. And whenever we hear a loudspeaker or a CD player that shows subversive signs of sounding more 'alive' or 'realistic' than most, we dismiss it out of hand as being too 'forward' or 'aggressive.' As if a lot of real music isn't forward and aggressive!

 

The idea that all we are trying to do is make equipment that gives the listener some sort of magical emotional response to a mystical experience called 'music' is all well and good, but it isn't what High End is all about. In fact, high fidelity was originally a reaction to the gorgeously rich-sounding console 'boom boxes' that dominated the home-music market during the 1940s!

 

We've lost our direction....The High End in 1992 is a multi-million-dollar business. But it's an empty triumph, because we haven't accomplished what we set out to do. The playback still doesn't sound 'just like the real thing.' People, let's start getting back to basics. Let's put the 're' back into 'reproduction.' Let's promote products that dare to sound as 'alive' and 'aggressive' as the music they are trying to reproduce."

 

 

...Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing."

 

J. Gordon Holt 1992, 2007

[Mallette]

It's hard to capture the sound of 16 tubas, or 24 trumpets,

 

I'd love to try.  Obviously that vid isn't going to have much in the way of fidelity, but I am pretty good at "listening through" the issues to get a sense of the actual event.  Chris quoted J. Gordon Holt.  I am no fan of him and his philosophy.  If I were, I'd be all about Allen organs and such. 

 

I believe that it is possible, and that our passion and our technology is, in fact, inching forward towards a more transparent window on acoustic space/time events.  Someday it will be possible to sit on the 50 yard line, 40 rows up, surrounded with OLED screens covering the walls, ceiling, and floor, and ALMOST be there.

 

I still say "Those are great sounding SPEAKERS..." remains the biggest insult an audiophile can receive.

 

Dave

[Chris A]

"LIVE MUSIC"

 

Back in 1940 when I started working seriously with loudspeakers, my aim was to approach Reproduction of original sound as closely as possible.  In 1946, when I produced the first components for the KLIPSCHORN® loudspeaker, that was still my aim.

Reproduction with accuracy has been my aim ever since. To that end, I "recalibrate my ears" frequently at live concerts, and I urge our clients, factory workers, salespeople, and engineers to do the same.  Many of our employees our speakers which they have probably built themselves as authentic KLIPSCH models.

 

A notorious magazine ostensibly "devoted to high fidelity audio" * recommends speakers to each other, not to original sound!  "Educate your ears" but "listening to live performances is not effective"!  How ridiculous can they get?  Comparing speaker A with speaker B, then with speakers C, D... etc., can only measure speaker A with a rubber yardstick!  Really, now, isn't it pretty clear that the valid yard­stick must be live sound?

 

Yet, I recall a hi-fi addict who liked his BLASTOPHONIC 88 speakers with loudness, presence, absence etc. controls better than live music.  That is his privilege; he paid for what he got.

But back to the objective: accuracy of Reproduction.  Once accuracy has been approached to a reasonable degree, one can always enhance, compress, expand, and alter tonal response. But if such traits are built into the speaker system, can it be restored to accuracy?  Probably not.  Each increment of "signal processing" adds its contribution of distortion, and restoration would be like trying to "restore" an out-of-focus photograph.

 

Somewhere in the magazine article the suggestion was to lay yourself in the hands of an "expert", and they even named one!  That party happens to deny the existence of modulation distortion and claims even if it did exist, it would be inaudible.

So, go to live concerts and get your ears calibrated, and then listen to speaker A versus B, A versus C, etc., and if one of those happens to be one of ours, your calibrated ears will recognize the cleanness (freedom from distortion) of ours.  You may notice also the dynamic range which does not need "enhancement", the genuineness of tone (no need for "tone controls") , and perhaps most of all, the freedom from "listener fatigue".

* I'll not dignify the magazine by name.

 

Paul W. Klipsch, 6 April 1984

 

 

 

On another note: perhaps reading what Gordon actually wrote in the above quote might help to redeem his memory a bit.

 

YMMV.

 

Chris

Edited November 21, 2014 by Chris A

[wvu80]

 

It's hard to capture the sound of 16 tubas, or 24 trumpets,

 

I'd love to try.  Obviously that vid isn't going to have much in the way of fidelity, but I am pretty good at "listening through" the issues to get a sense of the actual event.  Chris quoted J. Gordon Holt.  I am no fan of him and his philosophy.  If I were, I'd be all about Allen organs and such. 

 

I believe that it is possible, and that our passion and our technology is, in fact, inching forward towards a more transparent window on acoustic space/time events.  Someday it will be possible to sit on the 50 yard line, 40 rows up, surrounded with OLED screens covering the walls, ceiling, and floor, and ALMOST be there.

 

I still say "Those are great sounding SPEAKERS..." remains the biggest insult an audiophile can receive.

 

Dave

 

 

All good comments, Dave.

 

But until I'm rich enough to invite 150 brass and percussion players into my living room so I can hear their show, I'll settle for "good enough" with the Blu-ray recordings, and some nice Klipsch speakers. 

[Mallette]

On another note: perhaps reading what Gordon actually wrote in the above quote might help to redeem his memory

 

 

Holt had his moments and qualities, but neither of his magazines reflect a philosophy I can relate to.  I take $tereophile, but only because I get it dirt cheap and occasionally find a nugget amongst the BS they promulgate.  Some of their vaunted (at least in their own minds) recordings made with a half a million dollars worth of solid gold interconnects and such are complete stinkers that suggest they can't even read a microphone pattern.   

 

But until I'm rich enough to invite 150 brass and percussion players into my living room so I can hear their show, I'll settle for "good enough" with the Blu-ray recordings, and some nice Klipsch speakers.

 

And so shall I...

 

Dave

[garyrc]

loudness, presence, absence etc. controls

 

Love it! 

[sunnysal]

I listen to very wide variety of music; some "live" recordings which are taped in orchestra halls, some recorded in clubs, others in studios where the "live" sound is never heard by anyone (nor is it meant to be).  In my system I hope to hear the orchestra's sound as close as possible to what I would hear in the hall (frequency range, impact/dynamics, volume) and I hope to hear the jazz group from the club sound as close as possible to how it did to my recent club visit.  I also want the studio recording to sound as close as possible to what the group, producer and engineers heard and approved when they recorded and mixed the album in that studio.  A really tough job, no?  

 

Once I recognized and respected that challenge I began to focus on just that, getting things to sound as close as possible to my experience in the different venues and I am quite happy with the results.  However the problems remains, how does one know what a studio recording should sound like?  Unless one heard the piece being mixed and mastered?  My opinion is that we can't and the only choice is to try to amass your equipment and tweak your room to focus on what you do know; the live venue comparisons and the specs of the equipment.  After all, what else do we have?  

 

So I buy equipment with good specifications and mix and match, tweak and adjust until my live venue stuff sounds good and you know what?  My studio stuff tends to sound good too.  Since I am far from what most people would call a "purist" when I feel the need to tweak tone controls (I have them!) I do!  I am enjoying my live and studio recordings to the max.  I admit I have jumped off the specs reservation, I have heard too many super high buck, high spec systems playing music that sounds like crap to my ears, I also admit I can also hear the consistent benefit of quality components and room treatments.  In the end I made the decision to please my ears with music I love, investing in the best equipment I could afford but always listening to my heart and ears when building my system.  

 

For some folks, the results may not be "right" but for me it's right when me and my family can really get into the music and enjoy it, IMHO audiophile goal accomplished.

 

Warm regards from sunny El Salvador, Tony

Edited November 24, 2014 by sunnysal

[Mallette]

For some folks, the results may not be "right" but for me it's right when me and my family can really get into the music and enjoy it, IMHO audiophile goal accomplished.

 

TRVTH

Dave