Forum poll - How important is accurate music reproduction to you?

[bigfish786]

4. Been listening to music channels on tv, they don't exactly sound high fidelity .

so I put the turntable on and I felt my mood lift almost immediately.

Remarkable.

 

[Infiniteloop]

3 going on 4.

How do you reconcile your answer with the use of a turntable?

 

[abacus]

4 when mixing & editing sounds

3 when Hi Fi listening

Bill

 

[radiorog]

3

I want my system to sound accurate to what is being recorded. I also want detail. I also want warmth tho, because I can't think of any natural sound that isn't warm. Even a kazoo, which is raspy, full of reverb, and of a quite high frequency to the human ear, still sounds warm. Any equipment that misses this is bad HiFi IMO. I feel this is why warm HiFi is non fatiguing, because it IS accurate.

 

[Ajani]

Main System - Ideally a 4.

Other systems - 1.

How do I determine accuracy? Measurements. While I accept that we don't know how to measure all the sonic variables yet, I don't accept that products that fail the most basic measurements are accurate.

So an amp with high levels of distortion (no matter how pleasant) is not accurate in my books. Likewise a pair of speakers with a skewed frequency respsonse.

 

[Native_bon]

I'd assume that by accurate he means as close as possible to the original recording.

Yes, but how do you know how that recording is meant to sound?

You can kind of know what an acoustic instrument sounds like.  Electronic music including electric guitars, you've no idea unless you have the same equipment the band used and notes on what setting they used on each instrument.

Adding to that, a piano sound at home played on a hifi may sound very believable, but compared to the live piano at point of recording in the studio, will be not even remotely near to the original sound.

Edit: The question should be believable not accurate. You can never get accurate.

 

[Gaz37]

Obviously if the sound is REALLY muffled or generally poor quality then it's obvious but as for "colouration" how can we tell unless we have heard an unadulterated version ie. been in the studio to hear it first hand?

I could post a recording of me singing (although I wouldn't inflict that on anybody) and you would have no idea if it was a true representation of how I sound unless I had sung to you in person.

So I guess that makes my vote a 3

 

[iQ Speakers]

What an interesting post!

I'm busy holding listening trials of various discrete Op Amps that in one way or another colour the sound of our Hypex amps. The standard Nord Hypex amp using Hypex's LM4562 op amp input board is brutally powerful and accurate though the LM4562 has a reputation for being warm.

During my time with a Beresford TC-7520 DAC I swapped in a pair of LM4562NA opamps and the change was gorgeous. Very smooth and detailed. This DAC forced the retirement (and eventual sale) of a Naim CD5i-2.

You should have a look at Burson V5 or Sparkos Labs op amps. They are fully discrete, the difference is huge especially the full Class A Sparkos Labs they bring so much texture. Not cheap at $130 a pair.

 

[Native_bon]

1 and 4 are not that interesting since are definitive. You like certain sound character, you like it, done, nothing to discuss further. If you want accurate reproduction you have to rely on third party or your own measurements since you wont have a reference, as SpinyNorman pointed out.

But I find 2 and 3 interesting.

How can hi-fi gear make recordings better? I'm not talking going for vinyl against CD because they will be two different mastering recordings, which is apples to oranges. How does the system itself make bad recordings sound better with the same media and with the same mastering? Your experiences.

 

How do we define what better is?. Better is pleasing sound to the listener

 

[ID.]

Most of the time number 4/3 but sometimes turning the subwoofer up loud and having a big ballsy bassy sound is good fun too which would put that into category 1/2

this.

 

[Vladimir]

1 and 4 are not that interesting since are definitive. You like certain sound character, you like it, done, nothing to discuss further. If you want accurate reproduction you have to rely on third party or your own measurements since you wont have a reference, as SpinyNorman pointed out.

But I find 2 and 3 interesting.

How can hi-fi gear make recordings better? I'm not talking going for vinyl against CD because they will be two different mastering recordings, which is apples to oranges. How does the system itself make bad recordings sound better with the same media and with the same mastering? Your experiences.

How do we define what better is?. Better is pleasing sound to the listener

Up to you to decide.

 

[Bradley747]

where is all this leading to Vlad?

 

[Vladimir]

1 and 4 are not that interesting since are definitive. You like certain sound character, you like it, done, nothing to discuss further. If you want accurate reproduction you have to rely on third party or your own measurements since you wont have a reference, as SpinyNorman and Ajani pointed out.

But I find 2 and 3 interesting.

How can hi-fi gear make recordings better? I'm not talking going for vinyl against CD because they will be two different mastering recordings, which is apples to oranges. How does the system itself make bad recordings sound better with the same media and with the same mastering? Your experiences.

 

[Vladimir]

where is all this leading to Vlad?

Higher hosting bill for Haymarket.

 

[chebby]

What an interesting post!

I'm busy holding listening trials of various discrete Op Amps that in one way or another colour the sound of our Hypex amps. The standard Nord Hypex amp using Hypex's LM4562 op amp input board is brutally powerful and accurate though the LM4562 has a reputation for being warm.

During my time with a Beresford TC-7520 DAC I swapped in a pair of LM4562NA opamps and the change was gorgeous. Very smooth and detailed. This DAC forced the retirement (and eventual sale) of a Naim CD5i-2.

You should have a look at Burson V5 or Sparkos Labs op amps. They are fully discrete, the difference is huge especially the full Class A Sparkos Labs they bring so much texture. Not cheap at $130 a pair.

No good trying to sell them to me now. This all happened about six years ago. Your opamps would have cost almost as much as the DAC itself and wouldn't have fitted either. (Unless i'd cut a 'sunroof' in the Beresford with some tin snips!)

 

[Bradley747]

they'll be delighted - good work

 

[iQ Speakers]

I'm not! You can buy them directly from the manufacturers site. The Bursons are not actually that tall the Sparkos certainly would. What you have remember is that I'm being exposed to a more concentrated amount of Hifi at the moment. I'm just trying to pass on the best bits. I only learnt about these from some other fellow enthusiasts keen to pass on the wisdom.

 

[lpv]

4

using good headphones and ATC monitors ( for a while) I like to hear efforts ( or lack of skills) made in studio by people they know what they are doing so I can appreciate it.. therefore I need speakers or hedphones that get out of the way and show what artists have to say.

 

[DocG]

Not halfway there with the current set-up (but working on it...).

 

[Andrewjvt]

Most of the time number 4/3 but sometimes turning the subwoofer up loud and having a big ballsy bassy sound is good fun too which would put that into category 1/2

When I get a record player that'll have a colured sound (in a good way) so when I listen to that it'll be in category  1 or 2.

Stay in the fence steve ha

 

[Andrewjvt]

4

But how close am i? Ive no idea

 

[Covenanter]

4 ish! I want it to be as close to the original as it can be. How do I know? Well I go to concerts and listen and compare. Is it completely accurate? No of course not but the illusion can be very good.

Chris

 

[ID.]

where is all this leading to Vlad?

Higher hosting bill for Haymarket.

perhaps they can recoup it through advertising.

In my experience a system that glosses over the flaws in bad recordings can make good recordings sound too dull.

I think it's false to say there's no way to know what the original recording sounds like at all unless one were there. Logically a system that introduces the least distortion and variation in frequencies will sound closest to it. But really, if I listened to someone's voice ( talking, etc. ) there's a pretty good chance that I would later be able to recognize that person by their voice in real life, just from any semi competent system. The examples of real instruments also annoy me because much of the music I listen to involves no real instruments so I have to be able to rely on a relatively neutral system being able to reproduce it fairly accurately. Either that or ensure I have the same equipment as the person who made the music.

Interestingly, I find that warm equipment somehow sounds more natural, or I find myself thinking that it sounds natural even though it is much harsher if I listened to the actual instrument live in my room.

Anyway, I enjoy a mix of sounds, particularly by owning multiple headphones.

 

[Vladimir]

If you record yourself playing the piano in a normal room, and then record the speakers reproducing the recorded file in an anechoic chamber, you can compare results and see how far off it is. For practical reasons this is most of the time done with frequency sweeps in testing facilities. So if you get very accurate result this way, you can expect that same good results when you listen to your favorite music.

What i described as method for assesment of accuracy is oversimplified. Harman has gone much[/u] further than this.

 

[strms]

3-4 for me. Even with poor sounding CDs/Rips/streams, sat listening to Feeder - Singles, one of the worst sounding albums that I have, but still enjoying the music.