as i'm the person who ashworth_rich was referring to, why don't you read my 2nd post. i could have easily used a bright system as an example.
a warmer sound suits my room better as it's got lots of reflective surfaces, tiled floor, no curtains (i have wooden blinds), but if the room was more hifi friendly i think i'd prefer accurate...
Alantiggger
Well-known member
- Oct 14, 2007
- 274
- 33
- 18,920
chebby:
You've just put a CD in the player, or switched on a live concert on the radio, or settled down to a session with Spotify, maybe even an LP or a download from iTunes.
Your carefully chosen system is sounding fine and the music is transporting/relaxing/exciting you, repaying the time and money you spent to get it all right.
But is it really all right? Is there fiction lurking in the facsimile? You shake it off. Yes of course there is some. No recording process is perfect and no system is perfect. Live music will vary wildly between venues and studio music is but a layer of artifice atop the analogue (all at the whim of an engineer and the band). It sounds great, so what's the problem?
One problem is that somewhere back there, 'sounding right' turned into 'sounding great'. Another problem is that you went on the internet to seek wisdom on the matter! Before you had even formulated a question, a thousand strident voices had not only screamed their answers, but their owners had either taken sides against you or allied with you. Something about the way you said 'hello' maybe?
Somewhere, there in amongst the wall of noise, you can discern two overarching themes.
Either...
1) Accuracy is the goal, no matter how much or how little it might be at variance to what you find pleasurable about music. All else but measured accuracy is just fool's gold. You must only listen to what is measurably accurate and send your ears and brain to be 'politically rehabilitated' if they are reeling from the sudden absence of bourgeois pleasures (like warmth or deep bass or 'silky highs'). Anything but measured accuracy is 'subjective twaddle' whether you enjoy it or not. If some recordings sound awful then that's how it's supposed to be. Live with it or listen to something better recorded.
Or...
2) Choosing a system that portrays your chosen music in the way you like to hear it, by mixing and matching components and choosing speakers that flatter the acoustic properties of the room they are playing in and give you the warmth or edginess or silkiness (or whatever) you desire. Seeking the 'synergy' between music, system, room and you. No political rehabilitation required. You can be as 'bourgeois' as you like and to the limit you can afford. You can even care about what it all looks like (!) and care about the build/fit/finish to enhance your pride of ownership or to match your decor.
So do you enjoy a little 'fiction' when replaying music, or should it be eliminated - wherever possible - as a bourgeois lie?
You're ''at it'' aren't you ?
You've just put a CD in the player, or switched on a live concert on the radio, or settled down to a session with Spotify, maybe even an LP or a download from iTunes.
Your carefully chosen system is sounding fine and the music is transporting/relaxing/exciting you, repaying the time and money you spent to get it all right.
But is it really all right? Is there fiction lurking in the facsimile? You shake it off. Yes of course there is some. No recording process is perfect and no system is perfect. Live music will vary wildly between venues and studio music is but a layer of artifice atop the analogue (all at the whim of an engineer and the band). It sounds great, so what's the problem?
One problem is that somewhere back there, 'sounding right' turned into 'sounding great'. Another problem is that you went on the internet to seek wisdom on the matter! Before you had even formulated a question, a thousand strident voices had not only screamed their answers, but their owners had either taken sides against you or allied with you. Something about the way you said 'hello' maybe?
Somewhere, there in amongst the wall of noise, you can discern two overarching themes.
Either...
1) Accuracy is the goal, no matter how much or how little it might be at variance to what you find pleasurable about music. All else but measured accuracy is just fool's gold. You must only listen to what is measurably accurate and send your ears and brain to be 'politically rehabilitated' if they are reeling from the sudden absence of bourgeois pleasures (like warmth or deep bass or 'silky highs'). Anything but measured accuracy is 'subjective twaddle' whether you enjoy it or not. If some recordings sound awful then that's how it's supposed to be. Live with it or listen to something better recorded.
Or...
2) Choosing a system that portrays your chosen music in the way you like to hear it, by mixing and matching components and choosing speakers that flatter the acoustic properties of the room they are playing in and give you the warmth or edginess or silkiness (or whatever) you desire. Seeking the 'synergy' between music, system, room and you. No political rehabilitation required. You can be as 'bourgeois' as you like and to the limit you can afford. You can even care about what it all looks like (!) and care about the build/fit/finish to enhance your pride of ownership or to match your decor.
So do you enjoy a little 'fiction' when replaying music, or should it be eliminated - wherever possible - as a bourgeois lie?
You're ''at it'' aren't you ?
matthewpiano
Well-known member
- Nov 23, 2007
- 494
- 334
- 19,270
Option 2 for me. It has to be about enjoying the music and if that means a little colouration (whether on the bright or warm sides) then so be it. No-one is going to give you a medal for suffering years of unflattering hi-fi making your music sound ropey so why put yourself through it?
Charlie Jefferson
Well-known member
- Sep 2, 2007
- 229
- 0
- 18,790
chebby:
Thanks to everyone for joining in.
The score sheet so far...
1) "Measure for Measure" 4 people
2) "As you like it". 8 people (I am counting 'bluebrazil' as a 2)
...and a couple of people who don't really want to commit but gave some interesting comments including a very good question from 'ashworth_rich'...
ashworth_rich:Why does non-accurate sound have to be "warm"?
Indeed. Why do some people assume that the only alternative to an 'accurate' system has to be a warm sounding one?
A great thread, Chebby.
I'm hopelessly adrift between 1 &2 - depending on what intoxicant I've imbibed. Sometimes I'm nearer to Steven Patrick Morrissey's "I have tried for so long, it's all gone wrong*", but mostly it's love's labour's lost. In most things, hi-fi heaven too.
*You Just Haven't Earned It Yet, Baby.
Thanks to everyone for joining in.
The score sheet so far...
1) "Measure for Measure" 4 people
2) "As you like it". 8 people (I am counting 'bluebrazil' as a 2)
...and a couple of people who don't really want to commit but gave some interesting comments including a very good question from 'ashworth_rich'...
ashworth_rich:Why does non-accurate sound have to be "warm"?
Indeed. Why do some people assume that the only alternative to an 'accurate' system has to be a warm sounding one?
A great thread, Chebby.
I'm hopelessly adrift between 1 &2 - depending on what intoxicant I've imbibed. Sometimes I'm nearer to Steven Patrick Morrissey's "I have tried for so long, it's all gone wrong*", but mostly it's love's labour's lost. In most things, hi-fi heaven too.
*You Just Haven't Earned It Yet, Baby.
Hmm... I'm fairly new to this game, but above all I love music and how it makes me feel. I realise this makes me sound like some whimsical fairy, but it's true. If I can hear more detail or things that I haven't heard before in the music I enjoy, then that's fantastic. If it stops becoming pleasurable to listen to then I guess I'd be unhappy.
So 2, with a bit of 1 thrown in.
Maybe.
I think...
So 2, with a bit of 1 thrown in.
Maybe.
I think...
I enjoy music, but accuracy and colour are not mutually exclusive terms to enable the means to do that.
Craig M.:
i'll have option 1 please.
i don't mind a warm and gooey sound, but i don't want my hifi making everything i play sound like that. want to listen to something edgey and angry? sorry, can't do it, this hifi only produces a warm and gooey sound - you'll have to go elsewhere for your anger fix...
and what happens to the recordings that have been produced to have a rich, warm sound? if your hifi is also rich and warm, i'll tell you what happens, you get treacle all over the floor.
oh, sorry, i forgot, it's only neutral and accurate kit that makes some recordings unlistenable...
Spot on post Craig
Btw I would have thought it was fairly obvious (particularly given the examples given in the OP) that you were using 'warm' as but one example of 'coloured' as opposed to neutral.
I agree with JD that 'sounding good is to be preferred over sounding accurate', but the two need not be mutually exclusive.
Couple of points - Chebby, you've been complimented on the thread, but it seems to me there was a clear presumption built in to how you put the question as to what the 'right' answer was:
"Accuracy is the goal, no matter how much or how little it might be at variance to what you find pleasurable about music." - No one who's come on here and said they want an accurate sounds has said that they do so to the detriment of finding the music pleasurable. Quite the opposite, members have indicated how a high quality, accurate sound is more beneficial in the long run (your own difficulties in finding the 'right', but 'coloured' sound perhaps illustrative).
"All else but measured accuracy is just fool's gold." - No-one in response has spoken about measurements. There are some people out there who think that's important, tho not many on this forum. It seems people in both camps are able to tell what is a neutral, tonally even sound, it's just whether they like it or not.
"You must only listen to what is measurably accurate and send your ears and brain to be 'politically rehabilitated' if they are reeling from the sudden absence of bourgeois pleasures (like warmth or deep bass or 'silky highs')." - Very loaded way of putting it! But no, as Craig (and others) says, a neutral sound ultimately allows you to appreciate the warmth on a warm record, the deep bass (go listen to some active ATC 100s) on a bassy record and the silky highs on a record where that's recorded.
"If some recordings sound awful then that's how it's supposed to be. Live with it or listen to something better recorded." -v- "Choosing a system that portrays your chosen music in the way you like to hear it". - This is the main area where your attempted distinction ultimately falls down. Fact is, there are badly recorded records out there. If your system is incapable of showing that, it's not going to get the best out of sumptuously well recorded music. And the supposed 'advantage' of (2), 'it plays your music like you like it', ultimately means you'll get stuck in a musical rut - listening to the same types of music, variations on a theme, cos that's the only thing that sounds good on your hifi. Clean, neutral speakers may put you off some individual records you previously liked - but they'll allow you to listen to all genres of music hearing (as closely as possible with all domestic limitations) what the artist and engineer intended - so when you fall in love with a new piece of music, it's cos of the music, not the coluration of your hifi.
"... by mixing and matching components and choosing speakers that flatter the acoustic properties of the room they are playing in" - No reason that can't be done with approach (1). Additionally, a neutral speaker with a flat frequency response will have fewer peaks and troughs in the frequency range and therefore minimise room deficiences (Craig has good experience of this.)
" You can even care about what it all looks like (!) and care about the build/fit/finish to enhance your pride of ownership or to match your decor." - Who's to say this can't be done with approach (1)?? Some very nice setup pics from those in camp (1)!
At the end of the day, it's about the music. People should (and mostly do) strive to get it to sound as good as possible for themselves. For many, this means the colouration of camp (2). But, for me at any rate, the longer term and far broader enjoyment comes from (1) - then forgetting about the kit and sitting back listening to some tunes
i'll have option 1 please.
i don't mind a warm and gooey sound, but i don't want my hifi making everything i play sound like that. want to listen to something edgey and angry? sorry, can't do it, this hifi only produces a warm and gooey sound - you'll have to go elsewhere for your anger fix...
and what happens to the recordings that have been produced to have a rich, warm sound? if your hifi is also rich and warm, i'll tell you what happens, you get treacle all over the floor.
oh, sorry, i forgot, it's only neutral and accurate kit that makes some recordings unlistenable...
I agree with JD that 'sounding good is to be preferred over sounding accurate', but the two need not be mutually exclusive.
Couple of points - Chebby, you've been complimented on the thread, but it seems to me there was a clear presumption built in to how you put the question as to what the 'right' answer was:
"Accuracy is the goal, no matter how much or how little it might be at variance to what you find pleasurable about music." - No one who's come on here and said they want an accurate sounds has said that they do so to the detriment of finding the music pleasurable. Quite the opposite, members have indicated how a high quality, accurate sound is more beneficial in the long run (your own difficulties in finding the 'right', but 'coloured' sound perhaps illustrative).
"All else but measured accuracy is just fool's gold." - No-one in response has spoken about measurements. There are some people out there who think that's important, tho not many on this forum. It seems people in both camps are able to tell what is a neutral, tonally even sound, it's just whether they like it or not.
"You must only listen to what is measurably accurate and send your ears and brain to be 'politically rehabilitated' if they are reeling from the sudden absence of bourgeois pleasures (like warmth or deep bass or 'silky highs')." - Very loaded way of putting it! But no, as Craig (and others) says, a neutral sound ultimately allows you to appreciate the warmth on a warm record, the deep bass (go listen to some active ATC 100s) on a bassy record and the silky highs on a record where that's recorded.
"If some recordings sound awful then that's how it's supposed to be. Live with it or listen to something better recorded." -v- "Choosing a system that portrays your chosen music in the way you like to hear it". - This is the main area where your attempted distinction ultimately falls down. Fact is, there are badly recorded records out there. If your system is incapable of showing that, it's not going to get the best out of sumptuously well recorded music. And the supposed 'advantage' of (2), 'it plays your music like you like it', ultimately means you'll get stuck in a musical rut - listening to the same types of music, variations on a theme, cos that's the only thing that sounds good on your hifi. Clean, neutral speakers may put you off some individual records you previously liked - but they'll allow you to listen to all genres of music hearing (as closely as possible with all domestic limitations) what the artist and engineer intended - so when you fall in love with a new piece of music, it's cos of the music, not the coluration of your hifi.
"... by mixing and matching components and choosing speakers that flatter the acoustic properties of the room they are playing in" - No reason that can't be done with approach (1). Additionally, a neutral speaker with a flat frequency response will have fewer peaks and troughs in the frequency range and therefore minimise room deficiences (Craig has good experience of this.)
" You can even care about what it all looks like (!) and care about the build/fit/finish to enhance your pride of ownership or to match your decor." - Who's to say this can't be done with approach (1)?? Some very nice setup pics from those in camp (1)!
At the end of the day, it's about the music. People should (and mostly do) strive to get it to sound as good as possible for themselves. For many, this means the colouration of camp (2). But, for me at any rate, the longer term and far broader enjoyment comes from (1) - then forgetting about the kit and sitting back listening to some tunes
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
BenLaw:I agree with JD that 'sounding good is to be preferred over sounding accurate', but the two need not be mutually exclusive.
Agreed, but...
BenLaw:it seems to me there was a clear presumption built in to how you put the question
I suspect that I know exactly what chebby's presumption was...
Agreed, but...
BenLaw:it seems to me there was a clear presumption built in to how you put the question
I suspect that I know exactly what chebby's presumption was...
Ben, do you think i could retain your services to explain what i mean? you do it so much better then i do!
More No.2 but when i rebuild a system i never knowingly go out and find the sound i like. (exactly what that sound is after 30 odd years i'm not sure)
I find an amp i like and build the system around it, what sound comes of it depends on the starting point but as above it's not a conscious effort to begin.
At the moment the system is forward in presentation playing on transients more than harmonic's and the Totem's help taming the forward presentation of the Chord and the room.
In the past i've had various sound's, all that i've enjoyed form early Pye tubes to fuzzy bass Akai, i liked them all..
I find an amp i like and build the system around it, what sound comes of it depends on the starting point but as above it's not a conscious effort to begin.
At the moment the system is forward in presentation playing on transients more than harmonic's and the Totem's help taming the forward presentation of the Chord and the room.
In the past i've had various sound's, all that i've enjoyed form early Pye tubes to fuzzy bass Akai, i liked them all..
chebby:
Thanks to everyone for joining in.
The score sheet so far...
1) "Measure for Measure" 4 people
2) "As you like it". 8 people (I am counting 'bluebrazil' as a 2)
...and a couple of people who don't really want to commit but gave some interesting comments including a very good question from 'ashworth_rich'...
ashworth_rich:Why does non-accurate sound have to be "warm"?
Indeed. Why do some people assume that the only alternative to an 'accurate' system has to be a warm sounding one?
While I have been coy, I'm a 2
What I find most interesting is that I really wonder if those who say they like option 1, really do?* After all, "super-accurate" sounds like what Hi-Fi should be, isn't fidelity always a good thing? Coloration just sounds wrong - we've been taught to hate it.
For me, option 2 only states that you can appreciate your system and the music it makes, regardless of it's purity, or lack thereof. It doesn't necessarily mean you strive to find colour.....
My 2p
*it's rhetorical, no need to jump in with your defense of option 1.
😉
Thanks to everyone for joining in.
The score sheet so far...
1) "Measure for Measure" 4 people
2) "As you like it". 8 people (I am counting 'bluebrazil' as a 2)
...and a couple of people who don't really want to commit but gave some interesting comments including a very good question from 'ashworth_rich'...
ashworth_rich:Why does non-accurate sound have to be "warm"?
Indeed. Why do some people assume that the only alternative to an 'accurate' system has to be a warm sounding one?
While I have been coy, I'm a 2
What I find most interesting is that I really wonder if those who say they like option 1, really do?* After all, "super-accurate" sounds like what Hi-Fi should be, isn't fidelity always a good thing? Coloration just sounds wrong - we've been taught to hate it.
For me, option 2 only states that you can appreciate your system and the music it makes, regardless of it's purity, or lack thereof. It doesn't necessarily mean you strive to find colour.....
My 2p
*it's rhetorical, no need to jump in with your defense of option 1.
😉
Charlie Jefferson
Well-known member
- Sep 2, 2007
- 229
- 0
- 18,790
I like these absolutism versus relativism debates. They leave any putative Marxist with bourgeois leanings in a tizz.
So, back to KOL presented in all it's wav-to-DAC glory. . . aaah, but how is it meant to sound? What were they building in there and do my Roks get anywhere near it?
Dunno, but do care.
Chebby, you are a fiend.
So, back to KOL presented in all it's wav-to-DAC glory. . . aaah, but how is it meant to sound? What were they building in there and do my Roks get anywhere near it?
Dunno, but do care.
Chebby, you are a fiend.
Surely, everyone should be a 2?
How do you define an accurate system? One that faithfully reproduces the sound as if you were in the room with the artist when the music is played or, one that faithfully reproduces the sound that the artist, with the help of the engineer, commits to the recorded medium. Is it actually possible even to measure that accuracy? Doesn't it really come down to individual interpretation which can be characterised as choosing what makes the music sound best to us - number 2
After all is said and done, we ALL buy our hifi because of how our chosen music sounds played through it, don't we?
How do you define an accurate system? One that faithfully reproduces the sound as if you were in the room with the artist when the music is played or, one that faithfully reproduces the sound that the artist, with the help of the engineer, commits to the recorded medium. Is it actually possible even to measure that accuracy? Doesn't it really come down to individual interpretation which can be characterised as choosing what makes the music sound best to us - number 2
After all is said and done, we ALL buy our hifi because of how our chosen music sounds played through it, don't we?
I spent years changing my HiFi components due to ultimate dissatisfaction. An observation is that every upgrade I made resulted in a less coloured sound. I found that anything more than a very small amount of colour takes away as much enjoyment as it adds. My Spendor SA1s with Quad amp were quite neutral but the upper bass warmth made some stuff sound a little muddy and the rolled off treble removed ambiance from some things.
My final upgrade was a move to accuracy (not perfect I'm sure). I'm now enjoying my music more than ever. The room still colours the sound in the bass a bit as I'm using a sub, but it's not a big deviation. If I really want to colour the sound I use an EQ, eg iTunes or Airfoil. It virtually never happens. If I listen to BBC Radio then their EQ is faithfully reproduced without added colour. Simple. Music is usually so processed and EQ'ed anyway that my source material introduces more than enough colour. Why I'd want to have a fixed EQ setting built into my HiFi I don't know. It would be like applying the same amount of seasoning to all of my food by default, nonsense!
So there's my findings after 15 or so years of this hobby. It's what works for me and what has proven to make sense for me.
My final upgrade was a move to accuracy (not perfect I'm sure). I'm now enjoying my music more than ever. The room still colours the sound in the bass a bit as I'm using a sub, but it's not a big deviation. If I really want to colour the sound I use an EQ, eg iTunes or Airfoil. It virtually never happens. If I listen to BBC Radio then their EQ is faithfully reproduced without added colour. Simple. Music is usually so processed and EQ'ed anyway that my source material introduces more than enough colour. Why I'd want to have a fixed EQ setting built into my HiFi I don't know. It would be like applying the same amount of seasoning to all of my food by default, nonsense!
So there's my findings after 15 or so years of this hobby. It's what works for me and what has proven to make sense for me.
No 2 for me ( and i would have thought for everyone else ) whats the point in listening unless you are enjoying the sound rather than trying to break down every little nuance and analysing, pointless. I also think that as you get older your music taste changes and that can have an effect on your kit, same as your hearing changes as you get older so you might want more volume, bass etc to compensate, thus again your kit might change from the original sound you worked so hard to achieve. At the end of the day your budget dictates how your set-up is going to sound, knobody has listened to every hi-end component through every hi-end speaker and that means that knobody has ever heard how good proper hi-fi can really sound, when we fire-up our systems and listen we are all guessing here that this is the way we like our systems to sound. Just my opinion.
johnnyjazz:...whats the point in listening unless you are enjoying the sound rather than trying to break down every little nuance and analysing, pointless....
That's not what option 1 is about though. You can do that with option 2 as well. In fact, judging by the amount of box swapping that often ensues with option 2, it may be a more common behaviour.
That's not what option 1 is about though. You can do that with option 2 as well. In fact, judging by the amount of box swapping that often ensues with option 2, it may be a more common behaviour.
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
igglebert:That's not what option 1 is about though. You can do that with option 2 as well. In fact, judging by the amount of box swapping that often ensues with option 2, it may be a more common behaviour.
Are you saying that accuracy is only attainable from a system where it's not possible to swap boxes then? Did you have any such systems in mind?
Are you saying that accuracy is only attainable from a system where it's not possible to swap boxes then? Did you have any such systems in mind?
Now, JD, that's not fair.
Regardless as to whether both solutions have 100 boxes each or 3, my own experience and some observations have shown me that many people box swap because they can't get the sound balance right.
Regardless as to whether both solutions have 100 boxes each or 3, my own experience and some observations have shown me that many people box swap because they can't get the sound balance right.
Actually for me there's an inescapable interaction between 1 and 2 which I'm nearly always aware of when I'm listening to music. IMO one of the jobs of the producer is to create something which fully reflects the original artist's intention, whether this be an accurate portrayal of their voice, acoustic instruments, faithfuilness to an original live venue atmosphere, etc, or deliberate distortion/effect such as guitar effects, synth/electro, drummachine instead of drum... So maybe it's analytical but for me part of the enjoyment of listening to music DOES involve actively listening out for instruments, imagining myself at a live venue, admiring/spotting studio trickery, etc. So there can only ever be a subtle interplay between 1 and 2.
I've recently enjoyed a system upgrade, having replaced 15 year old speakers and CD player. I think it's inevitable that, certainly in the early stages, a lot of my listening will be veering towards the critical/analytical, and I am very much enjoying hearing all the improvements in sound I'm hearing. In trying to explain to people just how much the sound has improved, it's an unavoidably intellectual exercise which involves listening carefully for accuracy in sound reproduction, but one I'm enjoying at the same time. So I'm definitely more of a 1 than I was previously, given a greater appreciation for better SQ. But far from being able to pick either one or the other, it's the interplay between the two which adds to my enjoyment of listening.
I've recently enjoyed a system upgrade, having replaced 15 year old speakers and CD player. I think it's inevitable that, certainly in the early stages, a lot of my listening will be veering towards the critical/analytical, and I am very much enjoying hearing all the improvements in sound I'm hearing. In trying to explain to people just how much the sound has improved, it's an unavoidably intellectual exercise which involves listening carefully for accuracy in sound reproduction, but one I'm enjoying at the same time. So I'm definitely more of a 1 than I was previously, given a greater appreciation for better SQ. But far from being able to pick either one or the other, it's the interplay between the two which adds to my enjoyment of listening.
Not sure if all producers would share your opinion any more than editors e.g. Raymond Carver's stories were cut to ribbons by his editor as the recently published uncut versions reveal. Whose accuracy are we looking for - the artist's? did they want a live sound? a studio sound? Or the producer's? The record company's? Or the equipment manufacturer? Both options 1 & 2 depend on the listener's ears and there's no test devised which can demonstrate that any 2 people hear the same thing
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
-
What single Upgrade will make the biggest difference to Sound Quality?
- Started by TommoT
- Replies: 5
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram