In praise of older hi-fi

Hi Julian,

It was recorded at 96k 24 bit. I have no idea how this was re-mastered to 44.1/16: such things are beyond my ken.

Accurate to what? Well it has to be accurate to the recording you have and with domestic hi-fi this means that we are at the mercy of the studio acoustics and the recording engineers etc etc, and also the limitations of the format itself, plus finally the limitations of the hi-fi system and your room acoustics.

The notion that an accurate hifi can be 'unmusical' implies to me that the thinking is that the recording itself is 'unmusical' in some way, and we therefore need a coloured hifi system to change this essentially 'unmusical' signal into a 'musical' one.

Which has got to be balderdash!! If a system doesn't sound 'musical' then it can't be accurate. How many times does this have to be said?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by julian2002
who's version of accurate are you listening to?
the artists?
the recording engineers?
the producers?
the record executives?
the manufacturing engineers?
the builder of the recording venue?
the manufacturer of the recording equipment?
the manufacturer of the manufacturing equipment?
the manufacturer of the equipment you are listening to?
or yours?
Click to expand...
Surely for progress to be made there must be an attempt to achieve the truth at all points in the chain.

So the goal of an equipment manufacturer should be to achieve a flat frequency response, fast transient response, adequate sound levels, low distortion and phase errors, accurate soundstage and imaging, etc., etc.

Generally, we will tend to prefer to listen to equipment that comes close to meeting these parameters. If equipment is 'accurate' but still sounds dull or boring you can bet that it fails in some of these areas. The Devil is right, if a system doesn't sound 'musical' then it can't be accurate.
 
I don't know if this has been mentioned anywhere else in this thread, but I wonder whether 'bad' or 'inaccurate' sound(or at least what sounds bad to the likes of us who frequent this forum) is something the studio/mixing engineers may actually be actively seeking.

If you were a producer looking to make as much money from your artist as possible, and were actually thinking of what sort of hifi system is going to be reproducing him or her at the time of recording, wouldn't you aim for a production which appealed to the largest market? And wouldn't this result in a type of recording which we, here, wouldn't necessarily find pleasing to our finely tuned ears and systems?

It's just a thought that springs to mind when we're having discussions about 'accurate' reproduction, and isn't intended to add weight to or detract from any points already made.

Hope you are all having a good day....
 
Yes, on a good system you can hear different producer's ideas of what makes a good sound quite clearly. Each record/CD sounds slightly different from the next in terms of ambience/air etc. You can also hear edits in the tape from time to time.

The recent Beatles re-issue of 'Let it be' has been de-Spectorised - this is a good example - which is the 'correct' version?
 
Yep, I think for me, Goomer has also hit the nail on the head.

The problem is that certain albums in my collection are mixed for best reproduction on the lowest common denominator.

Also, if you were to survey a couple of commercial recording studios, and track down the designers of those studios, I'm sure you would also come across some differences in opinion on what consitutes good acoustics, or what equipment (desks, monitors, etc) they'd recommend for one of their installations.

This probably brings us back full circle to the original topic of this thread, why some people prefer older kit - maybe because it's more compatible with the studio engineer's view of accurarcy in the type music and era of recording that they listen to.
 
to chuck a spanner in the works, naim and linn are not really ruthlessly accurate as we well know, very breathing and lyrical, I would say natural souding from what I have heard, uh oh...sounds like trouble,

however, ATCs accurate may not be, say, quested or genelec or jbls accurate, to give a few studio things, so even accuracy is a relative thing!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Lt Cdr Data
...naim and linn are not really ruthlessly accurate as we well know, very breathing and lyrical, I would say natural souding from what I have heard...
Click to expand...
Naim have secretly developed a 'breathing and lyrical' circuit in their preamps!

'Natural sounding' is ruthlessly accurate.
 
Originally posted by The Devil
'Natural sounding' is ruthlessly accurate.
Click to expand...
But we're back to accurate to what? If the recording is frequency-flat then a speaker that dips gradually as the frequency increases is often perceived as more natural (and more pleasant) as it gives a more accurate impression of the sound a little distance from the performers.
 
I am just trying to dispel the myth that accurate = unpleasant.

I've heard this sort of so-called 'accurate' 'etched' sound from Martin-Logan hybrid electrostatics and it is most unpleasant indeed, you just can't wait for it to stop. It sounds like a bad hi-fi, not music. Naim speakers make a similar noise btw.
 
Originally posted by The Devil
I am just trying to dispel the myth that accurate = unpleasant.

I've heard this sort of so-called 'accurate' 'etched' sound from Martin-Logan hybrid electrostatics and it is most unpleasant indeed, you just can't wait for it to stop. It sounds like a bad hi-fi, not music. Naim speakers make a similar noise btw.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by 'accurate' 'etched'?

I agree absolutely that accurate doesn't mean unpleasant, although I'm not sure about the Naim thing. I have heard Tom Alves's SBLs make a sound that's very musical and far from unpleasant. He has spent a lot of time experimenting with the coupling between floor and speaker and I'm sure this has made a difference.

Interestingly, I've just read a post on the Speaker Asylum that is very relevant to this discussion - by layman. I'll quote this as he says it more succinctly than I could.

"Perspective varies from recording to recording. Each recording captures a different viewpoint. The consensus among audiophiles seems to be to let the speakers tell the absolute truth about recordings and let the recording engineers worry about perspective. Speakers should be accurate to the recordings (and not impose colorations or alterations of their own). That's fine if you have a collection consisting of pristine, perfect recordings.

Personally, I like speakers that are voiced with a gentle warmth curve, where treble power declines subtly relative to bass power. This reflects a more 'naturalistic' balance (that's closer to that of the concert hall). Speaker voicing is critical to my listening enjoyment."

The man makes an interesting point and one that brings us once more to the subject of vintage hi-fi. In the days before crossovers were widely used in speakers and hi-fi speakers often had large full-range drivers with Alnico magnets, the voicing was generally this way.
 
What do you mean by 'accurate' 'etched'?

I know what I mean, but it's a bit like describing an elephant - very difficult, but as soon as one walks in you know immediately that it's an elephant. I think it probably has something to do with treble coloration, but I don't know tbh.

The ATCs I use are flat-response monitors, so I guess what I hear is the preamp I have. I was under the impression (was told this by someone allegedly in the know) that most domestic 'hi-fi' speakers actually have a slight lift in the treble to add a bit of 'sparkle'. Is that wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by The Devil
I was under the impression (was told this by someone allegedly in the know) that most domestic 'hi-fi' speakers actually have a slight lift in the treble to add a bit of 'sparkle'. Is that wrong?
Click to expand...


Yes James, it is. I am glad you used the term "allegedly"
 
actually describing an elephant is quite easy as everyone has a similar frame of reference. i.e we all know what grey, wrinkly, huge, ears prehensile and nose mean. this is the problem when trying to describe sound as it's only been in the last 75 ish years that quality of reproduced sound has been of interest to a wide audience. i.e. one mans natural is another mans etched and the language hasn't standardised yet. i think this was brought home to me when merlin was demoing his tact gear. he comment that a perfectly flat target curve sounded boring (to him) whereas it sounded best to me on the day. this is the problem i have with describing kit in objective terms, it says nothing about whether an individual will find the results entertaining which after all is the point.
james, you say you find the flat response / accuracy of your atc's enjoyable and musical which is fine however it's obvious that some don;t therefore your statement that a flat response or accurate response is inherently musical is not true for everyone and therefore is a subjective comment. fine, but it's not something that you can get everyone to agree to. makes for a good argument though.
cheers

julian
 
Originally posted by The Devil
I was under the impression (was told this by someone allegedly in the know) that most domestic 'hi-fi' speakers actually have a slight lift in the treble to add a bit of 'sparkle'. Is that wrong?
Click to expand...
I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me. Most people associate 'boom' and 'tizz' with good hi-fi. Give them accurate or natural and they think that there's something missing.

Damn it, 95% of our society is about 'selling shit to weasels'. There's got to be more to life than carving the world up into little pieces and then rushing around trying desparately to sell them to each other.

Sorry, that sort of mood today.
 
I've been following this thread closely. I agree that certain older pieces of hi-fi get me closer to the music than quite a lot of the modern stuff. I have also thought quite a bit about speaker voicing, and why a flat in-room-response doesn't necessarily soud accurate. Some of my thought can be read here , although I have to say that my thoughts have evolved somewhat since writing this lengthy piece.

Essentially, I agree that perfect accuracy throughout the recording chain should give us the best possible music. But there are so many factors working against this that it's a miracle some records manage to sound a s great as they do.

Part of the problem must be the complete lack of standards; everybody eq's their recordings to their heart's content.

Another very important factor is dynamic compression. I can see that it is necessary for commercial recordings, but having heard the difference between recordings with and without compression, I sometimes think we're running 'round in circles trying to find a solution for problems that could only be sorted at the recording end.

I'm currently struggling with this big-time. If I ever come up with something rational and readable, I'll let you know.
 
Originally posted by The Devil
Well, it was a hi-fi dealer Merlin. I'll let him know.
Click to expand...

James since when have dealers ever known anything other than sales patter! Take a look at response graphs for Wilson Martin Logan and Sonus Faber to name just a few. They all roll off above 12khz!

He may be referring to BBC monitors which have a gently rising treble from 5khz. But they are studio monitors not domestic units, which just goes to show what crap these dealers spout in order to make the client feel they are on their side!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top