High fidelity

[Covenanter]

Actually I don't know what "tonally textured" means! I know what the words mean of course but I'm not sure what the quality you are trying to express actually is. One of my other interests is fine wine and I go to a lot of wine tastings and people use all sorts of words to describe what they are tasting, you may remember Jilly Goolden on tv waxing lyrical, but it is often difficult to know what they mean. (I'm a bit naughty so if it's a tutored tasting and the tutor says "What can you taste?" I have been known to say something like "I'm getting wet washing on a summer afternoon". Amazing how many people agree with me. :rofl: ) I'm also into photography and people rave on about "bokeh", which is the term for the out of focus blurring you get behind the subject when you use a shallow depth of field, and describe it with all types of subjective terms that are hard to quantify. I struggle with that too.

I guess I'm just an old-fashioned objectiveist. (I made the word up!)

Chris

 

[SolarGlider]

While it's very understandable what you say it is very subjective. As mentioned before you bashed forum-members and this forum first to make a point, and that point being your criticism on personal tastes when it comes to audio reproduction. I see for you audio has to be 'as close to the real thing kind of experience' but for other people it's not.

Also funny you expected this from a BX5, which is audio on a budget. You'll have a hard time mimicking a Bösendorfer.

I sell audio for two years now and what I've learned from customers and what other forum members wrote is that audio is very subjective. Everyone does it for different reasons. I have more analytical preferences while my father likes it warm and sweet. But then to say that so many opinions on these forum are rubbish or biased is stretching, just because they are not according to your preferences.

A lot of posts are created on what people feel when they hear something, not on how accurate it is. And definitely not everyone thinks that accuracy is that important. It just reads like you're saying that only your opinion matters, and that everyone elses not agreeing with your preferences was insignificant.

 

[Overdose]

I think people are missing the point! If you are talking on this forum about improving your systems then you need to have some common target to be aiming at! If you are all aiming at what sounds good to each of you individually then you are wasting your time talking to each other because what sounds good to one of you may sound dreadful to another. What I am saying is that you have to have a standard of "good" and it needs to be a common standard too or you can't have a meaninful discussion.

The stuff about not wanting to reproduce live concerts is a red herring. I wasn't saying that your hifi should make studio recordings sound like live performances! What I was saying was that if you have a recording of a live performance your hifi should reproduce it as close as possible to what you would have heard if you had been there. If it doesn't then it is by definition distorting. As somebody pointed out the problem with studio recordings is that you don't know what they "should" sound like.

Chris

Some people do miss the point. One of those standards you mentioned that is measurable and indeed measured for testing and marketing purposes, is frequency response. The flatter the better, for the most truthful reproduction of the recording. There are obviously other parameters and these too are measurable and quantifiable.

Tonal colouration is wanted or needed by some for their own enjoyment, particularly if trying to overcome room acoustics, some speakers will obviously sound better than others in these situations, but personal choice aside, the closer to a flat frequency response, the closer you will get to the sound of the original recording, leaving out room acoustics.

 

[lindsayt]

Some people do miss the point and one of those standards that is measurable and measured, is frequency response. The flatter the better, for the least distortion of the sound and as truthful a reproduction of the recording. There are obviously other parameters and these too are measurable and quantifiable.

Tonal colouration is wanted or needed by some for their own enjoyment, particularly if trying to overcome room acoustics, some speakers will obviously sound better than others in these situations, but personal choice aside, the closer to a flat frequency response, the closer you will get to the sound of the original recording, leaving out room acoustics.

Yeah, but a flat frequency response is only 1 factor in recreating the sound of a piano. Not even the most important factor either.

I find that a deviation from flat of 1 or 2 dbs is fine. After all, different live venues will have different frequency responses depending upon the aoustics. When you start getting to deviations of 6dbs or more, then the system is acting as a frequency selective filter, which is not good.

Pitch accuracy and stability are very important for recreating the sound of a piano. This is partially measurable. I'm not sure it's fully measurable in a vinyl system due to possible dynamic drag from the grooves on the stylus.

Then there's harmonic distortion, or the lack of it. This is partially measurable. I've never seen it fully measured over the wide dynamic range of a piano played at a 1 to 1 scale of live to reproduced volume.

Linked to harmonic distortion is detail retrieval. I'm not aware of any techniques to properly measure this with laboratory equipment.

Dynamics. As in the lack of compression. Difficult to measure.

3D soundstaging - left right front to back up down. One of the less important factors in recreating a piano, but grand pianos are large instruments. They are not point source instruments. Again, difficult to measure soundstaging with laboratory equipment.

 

[Overdose]

Some people do miss the point and one of those standards that is measurable and measured, is frequency response. The flatter the better, for the least distortion of the sound and as truthful a reproduction of the recording. There are obviously other parameters and these too are measurable and quantifiable.

Tonal colouration is wanted or needed by some for their own enjoyment, particularly if trying to overcome room acoustics, some speakers will obviously sound better than others in these situations, but personal choice aside, the closer to a flat frequency response, the closer you will get to the sound of the original recording, leaving out room acoustics.

Yeah, but a flat frequency response is only 1 factor in recreating the sound of a piano. Not even the most important factor either.

I find that a deviation from flat of 1 or 2 dbs is fine. After all, different live venues will have different frequency responses depending upon the aoustics. When you start getting to deviations of 6dbs or more, then the system is acting as a frequency selective filter, which is not good.

Pitch accuracy and stability are very important for recreating the sound of a piano. This is partially measurable. I'm not sure it's fully measurable in a vinyl system due to possible dynamic drag from the grooves on the stylus.

Then there's harmonic distortion, or the lack of it. This is partially measurable. I've never seen it fully measured over the wide dynamic range of a piano played at a 1 to 1 scale of live to reproduced volume.

Linked to harmonic distortion is detail retrieval. I'm not aware of any techniques to properly measure this with laboratory equipment.

Dynamics. As in the lack of compression. Difficult to measure.

3D soundstaging - left right front to back up down. One of the less important factors in recreating a piano, but grand pianos are large instruments. They are not point source instruments. Again, difficult to measure soundstaging with laboratory equipment.

Regardless, a flat frequency response is one measurable target that will get you closer to the sound of the original recording. There are obviously other theoretical absolutes that, if aimed for in a design, will move the results in the right direction.

Remember that hifi is for the reproduction of the recording and not the reproduction of the performance, a distinct difference.

I'm not entirely sure who brought a piano into the equation , but if life-like instrument sound is sought, then I'd say that frequency response is going to be rather important in replaying the respctive frequencies coming from the instruments, whatever they may be.

 

[Covenanter]

While it's very understandable what you say it is very subjective. As mentioned before you bashed forum-members and this forum first to make a point, and that point being your criticism on personal tastes when it comes to audio reproduction. I see for you audio has to be 'as close to the real thing kind of experience' but for other people it's not.

Also funny you expected this from a BX5, which is audio on a budget. You'll have a hard time mimicking a Bösendorfer.

I sell audio for two years now and what I've learned from customers and what other forum members wrote is that audio is very subjective. Everyone does it for different reasons. I have more analytical preferences while my father likes it warm and sweet. But then to say that so many opinions on these forum are rubbish or biased is stretching, just because they are not according to your preferences.

A lot of posts are created on what people feel when they hear something, not on how accurate it is. And definitely not everyone thinks that accuracy is that important. It just reads like you're saying that only your opinion matters, and that everyone elses not agreeing with your preferences was insignificant.

Well I'm pretty certain that I haven't said that anybody's opinion are "rubbish" or "biased" or "insignificant". What I have said is that I think "fidelity" is important, the clue is in the name hifi, but I have also said that it is fine if people want something that just sounds good to them. I have questioned whether we are all talking about the same thing and whether the language we use means the same thing to each of us. It's all about clarity!

As for "audio on a budget", are you suggesting that there is anything wrong with that or that customers shouldn't be able to expect a decent sound performance from something that costs less than a squillion pounds? Like everything else I'm sure that hifi is governed by the law of diminishing returns, ie very extra pound you spend beyond some baseline brings a smaller and smaller improvement. A Ford Mondeo will get you to and from the shops and a Ferrari will do the same marginally more quickly for an huge extra cost.

Chris

 

[lindsayt]

Regardless, a flat frequency response is one measurable target that will get you closer to the sound of the original recording. There are obviously other theoretical absolutes that, if aimed for in a design, will move the results in the right direction.

Remember that hifi is for the reproduction of the recording and not the reproduction of the performance, a distinct difference.

I'm not entirely sure who brought a piano into the equation , but if life-like instrument sound is sought, then I'd say that frequency response is going to be rather important in replaying the respctive frequencies coming from the instruments, whatever they may be.

Covenanter brought pianos into the equation in the first post in this thread.

I would say that a flat frequency response is less important in reproducing pianos than: pitch accuracy and stability, dynamics, detail / clarity.

 

[Overdose]

Regardless, a flat frequency response is one measurable target that will get you closer to the sound of the original recording. There are obviously other theoretical absolutes that, if aimed for in a design, will move the results in the right direction.

Remember that hifi is for the reproduction of the recording and not the reproduction of the performance, a distinct difference.

I'm not entirely sure who brought a piano into the equation , but if life-like instrument sound is sought, then I'd say that frequency response is going to be rather important in replaying the respctive frequencies coming from the instruments, whatever they may be.

Covenanter brought pianos into the equation in the first post in this thread.

I would say that a flat frequency response is less important in reproducing pianos than: pitch accuracy and stability, dynamics, detail / clarity.

Maybe less important than some other factors, but the desirable qualities you mentioned along with duration and timbre will be evident in any well designed product, that has less distortion also, as they are a result of acurate reproduction and not a party to it. Frequency response, along with other measurable parameters are what is used for the design of such products, without them we are left with trial and error.

It's all in the measurements and so hifi, in it's most direct meaning, is actually measurable.

 

[BenLaw]

Cool, where I come from active means exactly that - active xovers but I get the impression that a lot of the "hifi" active speakers (cheaper ATC and the like) simply have an amp bolted on the side, or am I doing them a disservice?

Which cheap ATCs did you have in mind?

 

[BenLaw]

Tell you the truth chris I think you are just trying to be controversial.

:rofl: :rofl:

 

[Native_bon]

Why does ATC always come up when taking actives as if those are the only actives avialable in the world..

 

[BenLaw]

Why does ATC always come up when taking actives as if those are the only actives avialable in the world..

I take it you haven't seen any of those AVI threads then? :read:

 

[MUSICRAFT]

Why does ATC always come up when taking actives as if those are the only actives avialable in the world..

Hi Native_bon

Good question

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Tell you the truth chris I think you are just trying to be controversial.

:rofl: :rofl:

wow..... me thinks you are confusing me with some one else.......

 

[Thompsonuxb]

"I guess I'm just an old-fashioned objectiveist. (I made the word up!)

Chris"

I swear, some of you guys...... :rofl:

how about 'tonal colouration'? would you hazard a guess to what that means?

 

[shooter]

Why does ATC always come up when taking actives as if those are the only actives avialable in the world..

I take it you haven't seen any of those AVI threads then? :read:

Its nice to be be way under the radar.

 

[Covenanter]

I am encouraged by those who can see what I am getting at and depressed by those who can't see the point!

Look I was an audiophile in the 1970s, Thorens TD160, Hadcock, AKG cartridge, amp (can't remember), tuner was Sony but model I don't know. Then I had a long period, career, kids and family, when I had other issues. Now I have time to get back into hifi andI i question what people are talking about and I get some abuse when all I am doing is questioning. I think there are people on this forum who don't like their comfortable little world questioned!

Chris

 

[matthewpiano]

Some people do miss the point and one of those standards that is measurable and measured, is frequency response. The flatter the better, for the least distortion of the sound and as truthful a reproduction of the recording. There are obviously other parameters and these too are measurable and quantifiable.

Tonal colouration is wanted or needed by some for their own enjoyment, particularly if trying to overcome room acoustics, some speakers will obviously sound better than others in these situations, but personal choice aside, the closer to a flat frequency response, the closer you will get to the sound of the original recording, leaving out room acoustics.

Yeah, but a flat frequency response is only 1 factor in recreating the sound of a piano. Not even the most important factor either.

I find that a deviation from flat of 1 or 2 dbs is fine. After all, different live venues will have different frequency responses depending upon the aoustics. When you start getting to deviations of 6dbs or more, then the system is acting as a frequency selective filter, which is not good.

Pitch accuracy and stability are very important for recreating the sound of a piano. This is partially measurable. I'm not sure it's fully measurable in a vinyl system due to possible dynamic drag from the grooves on the stylus.

Then there's harmonic distortion, or the lack of it. This is partially measurable. I've never seen it fully measured over the wide dynamic range of a piano played at a 1 to 1 scale of live to reproduced volume.

Linked to harmonic distortion is detail retrieval. I'm not aware of any techniques to properly measure this with laboratory equipment.

Dynamics. As in the lack of compression. Difficult to measure.

3D soundstaging - left right front to back up down. One of the less important factors in recreating a piano, but grand pianos are large instruments. They are not point source instruments. Again, difficult to measure soundstaging with laboratory equipment.

Agreed. As you say there are so many facets essential to accurately reproducing the sound of a piano and also so many different piano sounds to reproduce. For anyone to talk about 'high fidelity' in the strict sense and then to more or less ignore the fact that no two pianos ever sound the same as each other is more than a little ridiculous.

Certainly the level of harmonic distortion, pitch stability, and detail is crucial, but so is frequency response. One of the major ways in which the sounds of pianos can differ is in the balance between the fundamental notes and the partials, or harmonics, produced. This balance is directly related to the relationship between the hammer and the string and is affected by factors including the make-up of the hammer, how that hammer has been fitted to the strings, how that hammer has been voiced (where and how deeply voicing needles have been used and whether any doping of the hammer has taken place), the shape of the hammer and how well the hammer has been aligned. All of these things affect the way in which the strings are struck, which in turn affects the way in which the string vibrates. Then there is the relationship between the strings and the soundboard, the way in which the scaling has been designed, the exact make-up of the strings, and how well the piano controls and uses the resonance produced.

There is so much going on that it is no wonder pianos can sound quite different to each other and consequently, in order to be able to conclusively say how accurately a particular piano is being reproduced, a direct comparison between the reproduced recording and the live instrument is necessary and preferably in the acoustic space in which the recording took place. Short of this, for me the closest I can get to understanding how well a system is reproducing a piano is to ask whether or not I can easily identify the make of instrument being used. A good system, using good recordings, should enable someone with experience of pianos to be able to identify whether they are listening to a Bosendorfer, Steinway, Fazioli, Yamaha, Bechstein etc.

 

[Covenanter]

Yep that's the point! For example I've been listening to the Geza Anda performances of the Bartok Piano Concertos for 40+ years and I know what they sound like. When I hear a "hifi" now that makes them sound like fairground ride music I know that what some people call hifi is just a joke!

Ok I'm controversial but I do actually know what music should sound like!

Chris

 

[chebby]

Ok I'm controversial...

You call that controversial?

You haven't been here long have you?

 

[Covenanter]

No I haven't been here long but I am saddened that the WhatHiFi reviews seem to be based on a very biased choice of music. Surely they should be based on a wide spectrum of music. Ok maybe the subscribers to this forum like a particular type of music but that doesn't make it hifi.

Chris

 

[matthewpiano]

Yep that's the point! For example I've been listening to the Geza Anda performances of the Bartok Piano Concertos for 40+ years and I know what they sound like. When I hear a "hifi" now that makes them sound like fairground ride music I know that what some people call hifi is just a joke!

Ok I'm controversial but I do actually know what music should sound like!

Chris

You know how you want those recordings to sound but you don't actually know what they should sound like because you haven't heard the recordings played back on the equipment used to make them and you weren't there to hear the playing live when the recordings were made. Even if you had been there, you can't rely on aural memory as it is notoriously unreliable in anything other than an immediate and direct comparison.

 

[edplaysdrums42]

I just think the OP's original point is rather pedantic. Does it really matter exactly what HiFi means? I used to have a very neutral sounding system but in the end I moved to a more warmer and IMO more musical sound. I want to listen and enjoy the music not mix it. For me, having so much detail became A bit distracting in the end.

Cheers, Ed

 

[edplaysdrums42]

I am encouraged by those who can see what I am getting at and depressed by those who can't see the point!

Look I was an audiophile in the 1970s, Thorens TD160, Hadcock, AKG cartridge, amp (can't remember), tuner was Sony but model I don't know. Then I had a long period, career, kids and family, when I had other issues. Now I have time to get back into hifi andI i question what people are talking about and I get some abuse when all I am doing is questioning. I think there are people on this forum who don't like their comfortable little world questioned!

Chris

I see you're doing a bit of willy waggling yourself albeit back in the 1970's

 

[omnibeard]

Ok I'm controversial but I do actually know what music should sound like!

Chris

Sorry, but that's utter drivel isn't it? On so many levels. Even if you were present when the recording was made, memory is a tricky blighter. Visual and aural memory are particularly troublesome, hence why lawyers delight in picking holes in witnesses who claim to remember hearing/seeing things.

None of us have any idea how an artist intended something to sound exactly. I've played in bands, and sometimes when we've recorded stuff we didn't even know how we thought it should sound.

And who cares what it "should" sound like - isn't it about finding a compromise money-wise to get something that you like listening to?

Yawn.