Accuracy / fidelity vs musicality

[chebby]

I don’t have the ‘trained’ hearing necessary to answer the question posed by this thread, but this recent review seems to sum up those qualities I would seek if only funds allowed ...

https://www.whathifi.com/spendor/classic-23/review

 

[CnoEvil]

I was reading an interview that Alan Shaw of Harbeth gave to an Australian HI Mag and feel it's relevant to this discussion.

He basically made the point that over the last decade or two, audiophiles have had less exposure to live sound ie unamplified natural music such as Classical. He said that, in his opinion, Hi-Fidelity is how realistically a speaker recreates such an instrument. Whereas Pop music is a synthetic construct and so can't be used objectively to grade different speakers.

His goal is to create a blended, smooth and detailed "sonic curtain", that hangs in front of the listener. He doesn't want to create Speakers that "fill the room with intense beams of sound, as a Lighthouse illuminates a coastline." in other words, he wants to create a "being there" experience.

 

[CnoEvil]

I was reading an interview that Alan Shaw of Harbeth gave to an Australian HI Mag and feel it's relevant to this discussion.

He basically made the point that over the last decade or two, audiophiles have had less exposure to live sound ie unamplified natural music such as Classical. He said that, in his opinion, Hi-Fidelity is how realistically a speaker recreates such an instrument. Whereas Pop music is a synthetic construct and so can't objectively to grade different speakers.

His goal is to create a blended, smooth and detailed "sonic curtain", that hangs in front of the listener. He doesn't want to create Speakers that "fill the room with intense beams of sound, as a Lighthouse illuminates a coastline." in other words, he wants to create a "being there" experience.

While I agree with the first 2 paragraphs the last seems a little contradiction.
For me being there is no curtain and the speaker should never be a musical instrument.

My interpretation of the last paragraph, is that he is trying to create a realistic and enveloping "hologram" of real musicians playing real instruments, that hangs in front of the listener like a curtain.

What he wants to avoid, is producing an exaggerated sound, by elevating areas of the audible spectrum, to give the impression of extra air and detail, that is "thrust" at the listener.

 

[Andrewjvt]

I was reading an interview that Alan Shaw of Harbeth gave to an Australian HI Mag and feel it's relevant to this discussion.

He basically made the point that over the last decade or two, audiophiles have had less exposure to live sound ie unamplified natural music such as Classical. He said that, in his opinion, Hi-Fidelity is how realistically a speaker recreates such an instrument. Whereas Pop music is a synthetic construct and so can't objectively to grade different speakers.

His goal is to create a blended, smooth and detailed "sonic curtain", that hangs in front of the listener. He doesn't want to create Speakers that "fill the room with intense beams of sound, as a Lighthouse illuminates a coastline." in other words, he wants to create a "being there" experience.

While I agree with the first 2 paragraphs the last seems a little contradiction.
For me being there is no curtain and the speaker should never be a musical instrument.

My interpretation of the last paragraph, is that he is trying to create a realistic and enveloping "hologram" of real musicians playing real instruments, that hangs in front of the listener like a curtain.

What he wants to avoid, is producing an exaggerated sound, by elevating areas of the audible spectrum, to give the impression of extra air and detail, that is "thrust" at the listener.

Ok thanks

 

[stereoman]

The sheer musicality comes from really good or perfect reproduction. I mean - the more accurate reproduction is the more "musical" the music is. When accuracy fails, then alongside musicality. But there is this upper bass to mid response that in speakers that are acoustically good positioned give you an exciting sound (for example speakers in a music shop playing some stuff hanging on shop walls) This musicality is based on bass speed, depth and agility. That is why some 2.1 systems and bluetooth sound so good without sheer sound accuracy. So you can a bit falsify music to give you musicality without being accurate. Again, the rule is the more accuracy the better.

 

[CnoEvil]

If musicality is defined by accuracy, what brands would you consider deliver this?

What do you mean by "Musicality"?. If there is any subjectivity involved, then it diverges from accuracy, if accuracy is defined by measurements.

If accuracy is defined by how close a system gets to the way real instruments sound...then you are back to subjective assessments.

I would say a good Valve Amp could be considered Musical, but does not measure so well...so does that make it less accurate? If so, then musicality is not necessarily the same as accuracy....depending on how you define it.

 

[stereoman]

If musicality is defined by accuracy, what brands would you consider deliver this?

What do you mean by "Musicality"?. If there is any subjectivity involved, then it diverges from accuracy, if accuracy is defined by measurements.

If accuracy is defined by how close a system gets to the way real instruments sound...then you are back to subjective assessments.

I would say a good Valve Amp could be considered Musical, but does not measure so well...so does that make it less accurate? If so, then musicality is not necessarily the same as accuracy....depending on how you define it.

First of all there is a significance difference between the amplified sound and the sound reproduced. I.e. when you plug the guitar to the amp you get a 100% pure accurate sound for example. The same sound gets complicated when you try to record it and then reproduce. This is all what and why all these Hi Fi problems are about.

In studio you hear amplified live music, this music is being recorded and then reproduced in first original almost unchanged pure studio equipment. Then the music is recorded further from master tape and then the same music goes to milions different (our) customers' systems. The original sound gets spoiled more or less accordingly to the used systems and their quality and type.

All good monitor sound (monitor studio speakers) connected to good source and placed in good acoustically treated room will give you the best reproduction option. So in other words, the best musicality you get direct in studio or in gigs. Again you can falsify this by using some systems where speakers emphasise certain frequencies and make the sound upbeat. For example some Bose stuff or many french loudspeakers have this tendency to make music more "musical" by avoiding sheer analytical sound and make it "pleasant" by some bass - mid range expression. The French are heroes in this case as well as some Sony audio systems.

Leema Acoustics for example try a different approach. They are ones of not so many audio producers who try to convey the studio sound to home environment. That is why their stuff have critical linear response in speakers and electronics without falsifying the reproduction or reducing the bias to minimum. For example "Leema Acoustics XEN 2" loudspeakers. The same with Accuphase stuff or ATC I presume. Just examples.

 

[CnoEvil]

If musicality is defined by accuracy, what brands would you consider deliver this?

What do you mean by "Musicality"?. If there is any subjectivity involved, then it diverges from accuracy, if accuracy is defined by measurements.

If accuracy is defined by how close a system gets to the way real instruments sound...then you are back to subjective assessments.

I would say a good Valve Amp could be considered Musical, but does not measure so well...so does that make it less accurate? If so, then musicality is not necessarily the same as accuracy....depending on how you define it.

 

 

First of all there is a significance difference between the amplified sound and the sound reproduced. I.e. when you plug the guitar to the amp you get a 100% pure accurate sound for example. The same sound gets complicated when you try to record it and then reproduce. This all what and why all this Hi Fi problems are about.

In studio you hear amplified live music, this music is being recorded and then reproduced in first original almost unchanged pure studio equipment. Then the music is recorded further from master tape and then the same music goes to milions different (our) customers' systems. The original sound gets spoiled more or less accordingly to the used systems and their quality and type.

Given what you say...and the fact that the only person who really knows what the original recording should sound like, is the person who recorded/mastered it....then accuracy to the original recording is impossible to know.....and even so called neutral/accurate kit like Kef/ ATC/Focal/Bryston/Devialet etc all sound different.

Which "different" is more accurate/neutral?....that is really a rhetorical question, so I'm not really expecting a definitive answer.

 

[stereoman]

If musicality is defined by accuracy, what brands would you consider deliver this?

What do you mean by "Musicality"?. If there is any subjectivity involved, then it diverges from accuracy, if accuracy is defined by measurements.

If accuracy is defined by how close a system gets to the way real instruments sound...then you are back to subjective assessments.

I would say a good Valve Amp could be considered Musical, but does not measure so well...so does that make it less accurate? If so, then musicality is not necessarily the same as accuracy....depending on how you define it.

First of all there is a significance difference between the amplified sound and the sound reproduced. I.e. when you plug the guitar to the amp you get a 100% pure accurate sound for example. The same sound gets complicated when you try to record it and then reproduce. This all what and why all this Hi Fi problems are about.

In studio you hear amplified live music, this music is being recorded and then reproduced in first original almost unchanged pure studio equipment. Then the music is recorded further from master tape and then the same music goes to milions different (our) customers' systems. The original sound gets spoiled more or less accordingly to the used systems and their quality and type.

Given what you say...and the fact that the only person who really knows what the original recording should sound like, is the person who recorded/mastered it....then accuracy to the original recording is impossible to know.....and even so called neutral/accurate kit like Kef/ ATC/Focal/Bryston/Devialet etc all sound different.

Which "different" is more accurate/neutral?....that is really a rhetorical question, so I'm not really expecting a definitive answer.

Yes, but it is also impossible in 99,9 % to reproduce an original accurate recording at home. The only accurate recording is in this particular studio with this band who are recording their material right now and the sound engineers with musicians are the only ones who listen to and hear a pure original sound of the album. So in other words yes - only in studio you can hear how it should sound right. But at home you can get really close to this providing you will use a good thruthful system.

 

[CnoEvil]

If musicality is defined by accuracy, what brands would you consider deliver this?

What do you mean by "Musicality"?. If there is any subjectivity involved, then it diverges from accuracy, if accuracy is defined by measurements.

If accuracy is defined by how close a system gets to the way real instruments sound...then you are back to subjective assessments.

I would say a good Valve Amp could be considered Musical, but does not measure so well...so does that make it less accurate? If so, then musicality is not necessarily the same as accuracy....depending on how you define it.

 

 

First of all there is a significance difference between the amplified sound and the sound reproduced. I.e. when you plug the guitar to the amp you get a 100% pure accurate sound for example. The same sound gets complicated when you try to record it and then reproduce. This all what and why all this Hi Fi problems are about.

In studio you hear amplified live music, this music is being recorded and then reproduced in first original almost unchanged pure studio equipment. Then the music is recorded further from master tape and then the same music goes to milions different (our) customers' systems. The original sound gets spoiled more or less accordingly to the used systems and their quality and type.

Given what you say...and the fact that the only person who really knows what the original recording should sound like, is the person who recorded/mastered it....then accuracy to the original recording is impossible to know.....and even so called neutral/accurate kit like Kef/ ATC/Focal/Bryston/Devialet etc all sound different.

Which "different" is more accurate/neutral?....that is really a rhetorical question, so I'm not really expecting a definitive answer.

Yes, but it is also impossible in 99,9 % to reproduce an original accurate recording at home. The only accurate recording is in this particular studio with this band who are recording their material right now and the sound engineers with musicians are the only ones who listen to and hear a pure original sound of the album. So in other words yes - only in studio you can hear how it should sound right. But at home you can get really close to this providing you will use a good thruthful system.

 

IMO. You have too options when putting together a system

1. Pursue the Holy Grail of absolute Hi-Fidelity to the source....which is hard, given you don't know what that is.
2. Pick a system that sounds like real musicians playing real instruments.

Either way, IMO enjoyment of music should be the main driver of any decision, no matter how the system measures.....otherwise you either won't listen to it, or you will become a perennial box swapper, as you chase the pot of Gold at the end of the Rainbow.

 

[Strictly Stereo]

If you can achieve an accurate response with known test signals, then you have a pretty good shot at being able to accurately reproduce what the artist and production team committed to the CD, FLAC file, vinyl record or other distribution format.

 

[CnoEvil]

If you can achieve an accurate response with known test signals, then you have a pretty good shot at being able to accurately reproduce what the artist and production team committed to the CD, FLAC file, vinyl record or other distribution format.

....or if you know how real acoustic instruments sound like in a real space, then you have a great benchmark.

Anyway, thank you for an interesting and informative discussion...and it goes directly to the heart of the Natural vs Neutral debate.

 

[insider9]

Interesting debate. For me, a lot of people speak about flat frequency response as some kind of pinnacle. Which in my opinion it is only one of many things to get right. And even then I don't necessarily agree that completely flat sounds the best.

Sound of live instrument is a valid and an interesting benchmark and that's why I fine tune my DSP filters by ear but note this... There are huge differences between instruments. Take an acoustic guitar as an example, different guitars will sound different. Different set of strings, how long have they been used for, their gauge, material and thickness of the pick will produce a different sound. Not to mention playing techniques, how and where they were recorded how they were mic'ed and with that mics.

The unfortunate point I'm making is we never know. I don't believe the early makers of hifi ever expected a faithful reproduction. It was always going to be second best to live music but how close one gets is entirely personal.

 

[lindsayt]

I was reading an interview that Alan Shaw of Harbeth gave to an Australian HI Mag and feel it's relevant to this discussion...

...His goal is to create a blended, smooth and detailed "sonic curtain", that hangs in front of the listener. He doesn't want to create Speakers that "fill the room with intense beams of sound, as a Lighthouse illuminates a coastline." in other words, he wants to create a "being there" experience.

Smooth here being a euphemism for flat and undynamic?

If he wants to create a "being there" experience, he's not doing very well in achieving that goal.

 

[lindsayt]

If you can achieve an accurate response with known test signals, then you have a pretty good shot at being able to accurately reproduce what the artist and production team committed to the CD, FLAC file, vinyl record or other distribution format.

I totally disagree.

1. different concert venues and recording rooms and booths have different acoustics and therefore different frequency responses. This still doesn't stop live music sounding like live music in those rooms.

2. What about Fletcher Munson where the ear-brains frequency response varies with volume? With a dynamic recording, the transient peaks would subjectively have a different frequency response to the transient troughs. Does it matter? No not really. Or not a lot.

3. You can have a flat frequency response in one listening position. Move 3 feet and it's definitely not flat.

4. What about dynamics, clarity, low level detail, pitch accuracy? The system that have the flattest frequency responses are often, but not always, flawed in dynamics and clarity. It's what I call the overdamped sound. The Great Pyramid volume vs time sound instead of the Eiffel Tower sound.

Overall, get a system that is world class at dynamics, clarity, low level detail, pitch accuracy with an OK frequency response and you'll have something that sounds like real musicians and singers being actually there in your room. Which would make it both accurate and musical. At least according to my definition of accurate.

In hi-fi, accurate is often used as a euphemism for a leaner than neutral overdamped / under-dynamic hi-fi sound.

 

[Macspur]

I was reading an interview that Alan Shaw of Harbeth gave to an Australian HI Mag and feel it's relevant to this discussion...

...His goal is to create a blended, smooth and detailed "sonic curtain", that hangs in front of the listener. He doesn't want to create Speakers that "fill the room with intense beams of sound, as a Lighthouse illuminates a coastline." in other words, he wants to create a "being there" experience.

Smooth here being a euphemism for flat and undynamic?

If he wants to create a "being there" experience, he's not doing very well in achieving that goal.

that's a matter of opinion.

Mac

www.realmusicnet.wordpress.com

 

[Strictly Stereo]

Interesting debate. For me, a lot of people speak about flat frequency response as some kind of pinnacle. Which in my opinion it is only one of many things to get right. And even then I don't necessarily agree that completely flat sounds the best.

I agree on both counts. A flat frequency response is only one aspect of accurate reproduction. A flat frequency response may not be the most pleasing to the ear. Personal taste plays a part here too. Nevertheless, a flat response provides the truest reproduction of what is captured in the recording. One potential wrinkle here is that mastering engineers often skew their mixes based on assumptions about the playback equipment.

Sound of live instrument is a valid and an interesting benchmark and that's why I fine tune my DSP filters by ear but note this... There are huge differences between instruments. Take an acoustic guitar as an example, different guitars will sound different. Different set of strings, how long have they been used for, their gauge, material and thickness of the pick will produce a different sound. Not to mention playing techniques, how and where they were recorded how they were mic'ed and with that mics.

The unfortunate point I'm making is we never know. I don't believe the early makers of hifi ever expected a faithful reproduction. It was always going to be second best to live music but how close one gets is entirely personal.

DSP can be used in a number of places in a playback chain. One option which is growing in popularity is DSP-based room correction. This effectively trades off a flat frequency response (or a response which fits dialled in house curve) against time domain errors, which is a compromise of a different kind.

 

[Strictly Stereo]

If you can achieve an accurate response with known test signals, then you have a pretty good shot at being able to accurately reproduce what the artist and production team committed to the CD, FLAC file, vinyl record or other distribution format.

I totally disagree.

1. different concert venues and recording rooms and booths have different acoustics and therefore different frequency responses. This still doesn't stop live music sounding like live music in those rooms.

2. What about Fletcher Munson where the ear-brains frequency response varies with volume? With a dynamic recording, the transient peaks would subjectively have a different frequency response to the transient troughs. Does it matter? No not really. Or not a lot.

3. You can have a flat frequency response in one listening position. Move 3 feet and it's definitely not flat.

4. What about dynamics, clarity, low level detail, pitch accuracy? The system that have the flattest frequency responses are often, but not always, flawed in dynamics and clarity. It's what I call the overdamped sound. The Great Pyramid volume vs time sound instead of the Eiffel Tower sound.

Overall, get a system that is world class at dynamics, clarity, low level detail, pitch accuracy with an OK frequency response and you'll have something that sounds like real musicians and singers being actually there in your room. Which would make it both accurate and musical. At least according to my definition of accurate.

In hi-fi, accurate is often used as a euphemism for a leaner than neutral overdamped / under-dynamic hi-fi sound.

To pick up on your points...

1. They do indeed and those spaces are captured in the recordings along with the musicians and their instruments. My point is that, if your playback chain and your listening room have a neutral character, with a flat frequency reponse and well controlled decay times, then you can accurately reproduce the sound of the original recording space, as captured in the original recording.

2. Does Fletcher-Munson matter here? As long as my playback chain and room are not adding their own colourations and I listen at the same level, my perceptions will be the same, whether I am listening to the live performance or a recording. If I listen at home at a lower level, I perceive essentially the same thing as if the live musicians were playing more quietly.

3. Very true, especially as frequency increases and wavelengths become shorter. Physical acoustic treatments are better here than EQ or room correction.

4. I would suggest that clarity, low level detail and pitch accuracy are all secondary consequences of getting some more fundemental things right. A flat frequency response is only one aspect of a system's performance. Shooting for a flat frequency response with no regard to other parameters is probably going to provide a dissatisfying end result. When I talk about "neutral" above, I am not just talking about a flat frequency response. I am talking about good time domain behaviour too.

 

[Andrewjvt]

If you can achieve an accurate response with known test signals, then you have a pretty good shot at being able to accurately reproduce what the artist and production team committed to the CD, FLAC file, vinyl record or other distribution format.

I totally disagree.

1. different concert venues and recording rooms and booths have different acoustics and therefore different frequency responses. This still doesn't stop live music sounding like live music in those rooms.

2. What about Fletcher Munson where the ear-brains frequency response varies with volume? With a dynamic recording, the transient peaks would subjectively have a different frequency response to the transient troughs. Does it matter? No not really. Or not a lot.

3. You can have a flat frequency response in one listening position. Move 3 feet and it's definitely not flat.

4. What about dynamics, clarity, low level detail, pitch accuracy? The system that have the flattest frequency responses are often, but not always, flawed in dynamics and clarity. It's what I call the overdamped sound. The Great Pyramid volume vs time sound instead of the Eiffel Tower sound.

 

Overall, get a system that is world class at dynamics, clarity, low level detail, pitch accuracy with an OK frequency response and you'll have something that sounds like real musicians and singers being actually there in your room. Which would make it both accurate and musical. At least according to my definition of accurate.

In hi-fi, accurate is often used as a euphemism for a leaner than neutral overdamped / under-dynamic hi-fi sound.

To pick up on your points...

1. They do indeed and those spaces are captured in the recordings along with the musicians and their instruments. My point is that, if your playback chain and your listening room have a neutral character, with a flat frequency reponse and well controlled decay times, then you can accurately reproduce the sound of the original recording space, as captured in the original recording.

2. Does Fletcher-Munson matter here? As long as my playback chain and room are not adding their own colourations and I listen at the same level, my perceptions will be the same, whether I am listening to the live performance or a recording. If I listen at home at a lower level, I perceive essentially the same thing as if the live musicians were playing more quietly.

3. Very true, especially as frequency increases and wavelengths become shorter. Physical acoustic treatments are better here than EQ or room correction.

4. I would suggest that clarity, low level detail and pitch accuracy are all secondary consequences of getting some more fundemental things right. A flat frequency response is only one aspect of a system's performance. Shooting for a flat frequency response with no regard to other parameters is probably going to provide a dissatisfying end result. When I talk about "neutral" above, I am not just talking about a flat frequency response. I am talking about good time domain behaviour too.

The need to reduce unwanted harmonics as very important?

 

[insider9]

One option which is growing in popularity is DSP-based room correction. This effectively trades off a flat frequency response (or a response which fits dialled in house curve) against time domain errors, which is a compromise of a different kind.

Not really the case anymore. FIR based DSP improves both frequency response and time domain. Times of graphic equaliser are long gone sure some people still use them or digital representation of them. There is no need for compromise the only restriction nowadays is the processing power of gear you're using and the actual solution.

But I agree overall it's important to get the basics right. Treat the room to get the reverberation down, even up and lower decay times, get rid of reflections, setup speakers and listening position correctly and then add FIR based DSP to further improve impulse response, remove bass humps and linearise the phase. Now whether you got with flat or sloped it is personal preference.

I don't think we've ever had it this good with not expensive solutions available and lots of knowledge available online.

 

[MajorFubar]

The sheer musicality comes from really good or perfect reproduction.

Nah I can't agree with this. The two are unrelated, though not necessarily exclusive. I've had experience of £200 microsystems which are at least a really nice listen, in a musical sense. I'm sure other folks must have too.

 

[Strictly Stereo]

Not really the case anymore. FIR based DSP improves both frequency response and time domain. Times of graphic equaliser are long gone sure some people still use them or digital representation of them. There is no need for compromise the only restriction nowadays is the processing power of gear you're using and the actual solution.

FIR filters can correct frequency response without introducing phase errors. This is certainly desirable, but it is not a magic bullet and FIR filters are not without their own drawbacks. DSP-based room EQ does little to address the delays between direct and reflected sound or the decay times of the listening space.

But I agree overall it's important to get the basics right. Treat the room to get the reverberation down, even up and lower decay times, get rid of reflections, setup speakers and listening position correctly and then add FIR based DSP to further improve impulse response, remove bass humps and linearise the phase. Now whether you got with flat or sloped it is personal preference.

I don't think we've ever had it this good with not expensive solutions available and lots of knowledge available online.

Agreed.

 

[insider9]

Not really the case anymore. FIR based DSP improves both frequency response and time domain. Times of graphic equaliser are long gone sure some people still use them or digital representation of them. There is no need for compromise the only restriction nowadays is the processing power of gear you're using and the actual solution.

FIR filters can correct frequency response without introducing phase errors. This is certainly desirable, but it is not a magic bullet and FIR filters are not without their own drawbacks. DSP-based room EQ does little to address the delays between direct and reflected sound or the decay times of the listening space.

But I agree overall it's important to get the basics right. Treat the room to get the reverberation down, even up and lower decay times, get rid of reflections, setup speakers and listening position correctly and then add FIR based DSP to further improve impulse response, remove bass humps and linearise the phase. Now whether you got with flat or sloped it is personal preference.

I don't think we've ever had it this good with not expensive solutions available and lots of knowledge available online.

Agreed.

Absolutely agree

 

[lindsayt]

I was reading an interview that Alan Shaw of Harbeth gave to an Australian HI Mag and feel it's relevant to this discussion...

...His goal is to create a blended, smooth and detailed "sonic curtain", that hangs in front of the listener. He doesn't want to create Speakers that "fill the room with intense beams of sound, as a Lighthouse illuminates a coastline." in other words, he wants to create a "being there" experience.

Smooth here being a euphemism for flat and undynamic?

If he wants to create a "being there" experience, he's not doing very well in achieving that goal.

that's a matter of opinion.

Mac

www.realmusicnet.wordpress.com

The opinion will depend on whether you've compared Harbeth's against other speakers that are better at being there or not.

It takes 5 seconds of listening to the superior speakers in an AB demo to come to the opinion that Harbeth's aren't good at "being there".

 

[Macspur]

I was reading an interview that Alan Shaw of Harbeth gave to an Australian HI Mag and feel it's relevant to this discussion...

...His goal is to create a blended, smooth and detailed "sonic curtain", that hangs in front of the listener. He doesn't want to create Speakers that "fill the room with intense beams of sound, as a Lighthouse illuminates a coastline." in other words, he wants to create a "being there" experience.

Smooth here being a euphemism for flat and undynamic?

If he wants to create a "being there" experience, he's not doing very well in achieving that goal.

that's a matter of opinion.

Mac

www.realmusicnet.wordpress.com

The opinion will depend on whether you've compared Harbeth's against other speakers that are better at being there or not.

It takes 5 seconds of listening to the superior speakers in an AB demo to come to the opinion that Harbeth's aren't good at "being there".

I've listened to loads of speakers and Harbeth are the most natural I've heard, I'm sure there are others, but I've yet to hear them for myself.

Mac

www.realmusicnet.wordpress.com