My feelings about the Heathrow show

If the recording is no good, there's nothing we can do about it. Introducing inaccurate transducers isn't really going to help.

Only by playing back a recording at which you were present.

The HiFi enthusiasts are wrong.

 

Why?

 

Hi,

True to a degree. But most Studio Monitors are quite inaccurate. And most Mikes are.

Even then the recording will be coloured severely by the Mikes used, the Mike setup, the recording equipement

Hmmm. Maybe. Yet they are the remaining few to whom sound quality matters.

Most recordings are mixed/mastering on systems and in rooms that have a shelved down top and a boosted midbass and most of the time the mastering engineer will compensate for that.

Ciao T

 

I really should've trademarked that line.

 

"most Studio Monitors are quite inaccurate. And most Mikes are."

Not much we can do about that.

"the recording will be coloured severely by the Mikes used, the Mike setup, the recording equipement"

Nor that.

"Most recordings are mixed/mastering on systems and in rooms that have a shelved down top and a boosted midbass and most of the time the mastering engineer will compensate for that."

I don't know whether or not that is true, but there's nothing we can do about that, either!

 

Well, that was certainly an in-depth report on the show. So here's my shallow and bigoted take on it all:
It was my first HiFi show and really didn't have any pre conceived notions of what to expect. The sounds that I liked most were from Sugden, BAT, 47 Labs and Lavardin with another room down the end with some horn speakers whose name I have forgotten (couldn't have those though, on purely cosmetic/ridicule from friends reasons).
The big boys displays were a bit over the top - the Krell and Audio research rooms were copeteing with each other for explosive percussive bass, and were hell bent on re-arranging your internal organs. On reaching the second hotel, I could hear really appealing music coming from the stairwell, and thought “That's the stuff for meâ€Â. And who was it? A group of musicians playing downstairs…
The Tact room next, and I thought it all sounded a bit clinical, and when I left, I thought the sound next door was far better - and it was? You guessed it - the combo had re-located to the bar. It all puts it into perspective; HiFi at any price has got a long way to go before it sounds like musicians in your own living room. Sure in absolutely ideal surroundings it would all sound much better, but it would never fool anyone wandering past your window.
What did I like least? Well that would have to be the Naim rooms. Big disappointment, but it may just have been the speakers they were using.

Right, I'm going to run away and hide now....

 

Hi,

Hmm. So, we have to accept that with an accurate HiFi System the majority of recordings sound BAD. Now I don't know about you, but I personally and most of the people at the show I spoke too seemed to prefer GOOD sound (whatever that may be, on a personal level) to BAD sound.

And there is my case that accurcay can be overdone and that if errors are extant anyway than those commissioned by the replay chain (for a commercial one at least) should be such as to please the majority of listeners, if in doubt, while allowing a reasonable degree of accuracy for the few "flawless" recordings one may find.

Ciao T

 

I don't accept that for one moment. You seem to be suggesting that your equipment will "remaster" a duff recording. Nonsense, IMO.

 

Here I have some problems. Many companies say that their product reproduces what's recorded and don't add any colouring. BTW also in the McIntosh room. Now why does the McIntosh system sound completely different to the Shaling's one if they both reproduce what's on the recording. The room acoustics can change the timbre of a reprodution but not at the point that makes the characteristics of a McIntosh sound or Shaling's one. Same can be said to all those systems where the company swears the reproduction is what is on the recording.

About the sax/mastertape demonstration (which I didn't see).
The reproduction of a sax is not a difficult task especially when the system is tuned to put in a certain warmth. A system has its limit when reproducing complex sounds like big orchestral works and large choirs. Sometimes also piano and organ music can show the system limits.
When lots of instruments with different characteristics play together especially in different intervals then lots of systems show how they can (can't) manage contemporarly the different frequencies, characteristics of sound from each instrument. When then listening at concert level then the difference between systems which all "reproduce what's on the source" are so big that you wonder who is telling the truth.
And why can some systems reproduce a big orchestral music clearer than others when playing loud as in a concert?

I must go now and will continue later on...

 

Hi,

Actually, IMHO "my" equipment alters recordings considerably less than most, both in the sense of commision and ommision. Hence the differences between different recordings are a lot more pronounced than on most systems I am familiar with.

Note that I am not defending specifically what I am doing. I do what I like and if it sells and if people like the way it sounds (many do), great. What I am saying is that making Gear that is accurate according to any given fixed set of parameters often serves music and recordings poorely.

You may agree or disagree, that's your perogative.

Ciao T

 

"You may agree or disagree"

Thanks! I disagree rather vehemently. You viewpoint defeats the whole object of hi-fi.

 

The whole point of a hifi system for me is one that makes me enjoy listening to music and makes me keep on wanting to listen. I couldnt give a stuff if it is accurate or not (whatever accurate means). Whats the point of having an ultra accurate system if one doesnt enjoy the results?

 

Hi,

Two things, the standard shanling gear sounds cosiderably closer to what conventional HiFi Sounds like, what you heard was NOT Shanling per se.

Second, we do not promote our equipment as offering "reproduction what's recorded and not adding any colouring". I merely remarked, that in my experience, using recordings I know and/or have made the system I presented under the 3D Sonics Banner does not create echos in the room or adds "tails" to notes, it merely lets through as much of the recording (not all I haste to add) as I feel is compatible with the general good.

The room the system was in is simply not large enough to create distinct echos or even a strongly audible reverbrant tail (a large concert hall or auditorium is however) and these is no echo or reverb effect in any of the electronics. Moreover, playing a recording which does not have a natural recorded ambiance no such things are observable (I do know what you where refering to BTW). So, the system and room together could not produce significant levels of reverb and certainly no echo, only a much larger room can do so.

Hence, the conclusion I must draw from the available data is that what became audible was part of the recording. Did you ever try to listen to said recordings using a high perfomance player and a set of Stax ESL Headphones? I find such a setup similarly revealing of low level detail.

Thirdly, I will readily admit that the sound within the specific room we had made strings (and other instruments) sound a little thin, it was one of the problems with the room, one that I could have resolved easily enough but could not do so due to the inability to apply the required acoustic devices to the ceiling, corners and walls (without risking a big bill from the hotel for damaging their wallpaper at least).

Also, image depth and precision where somewhat compromised by the room and the system arrangement on the short wall, I wanted to do it different but my business partner insisted that the system had to be placed at the short wall.

Still, many of the core sonic attributes I expected from our system where there, some liked them some did not. I'll leave it at that.

Ciao T

(PS, what Speakers did MacIntosh use?)

 

I think accuracy is bub's grail. If his system is as accurate to the recording as the AR/Wilson Maxx2 then he's a very lucky man since it was easily the most dynamic, transparent and therefore lifelike system I've heard. And yes, as I said before it played the Eels, but it played them in a very accurate, matter of fact way. This is a big step up from normal 'high-end' renditions but it lacked the humour. At my place the Eels bring a smile to my face, they click. So my grail is not accuracy, I guess, and certainly not for its own sake. Of course you need a degree of accuracy otherwise you can't hear what's going on.

PS Whilst composing this rather clumsy effort Robbo seems to have said it better above.

 

That'll be it then. Titian's system obviously isn't revealing enough...

-- Ian

 

Whats the point of having an ultra accurate system if one doesnt enjoy the results?

Because you will enjoy the results! Assuming you like the music, that is.

This notion that you can get "too accurate" is put about by the mags. It relies on the notion that most recordings are pretty duff. They aren't, IMO.

Alex, if the Eels didn't sound as good as at home, then the Wilson system wasn't as accurate as what you have.

 

Hi,

Here we have EXACTLY the two sides of the argument.

One says "If it is not accurate it's not HiFi!" (I personally lean towards this position to a certain degree, but not completely), the other says "I want to enjoy music!". Both are right of course and if I manufacture and sell Music reproduction equipment I must often choose whom to serve, for no man can server two master equally well, especially if they have diametrially opposed requirements.

And hence "High End" equipment will always differ in sound. What I find sad is that more and more of it ends up sounding fundamentally no different from "lo-fi" gear, a fact quite possibly related to shared fundamental technology, components et al....

Ciao T

 

Bub, I don't think its that simple. I'm not sure I can explain, maybe Robbo can, but the emotional or humourous content of much music does not seem to depend on accuracy per se. I'm fairly sure the Wilson were more accurate, although I wouldn't describe the Neats as particularly inaccurate, but they somehow missed the point of the music whilst delivering it very accurately. Maybe its a wood for the trees thing.

 

Titian,

I must disagree here, after all I heard the comparison and could detect no added warmth from the Amplification.

Yes a saxophone is relatively easy to reproduce - but ifeel your characterisations of the failing of many systems with orchestral music (and indeed your critisism of the McIintosh at high levels) misses the fundemental cause.

Titian, above a certain level, and dependent on the size and construction of the room, you will hear more of the room's contribution than the system's. It follows that it is futile to try to replay massed choral works at concert volumes in small flimsily built hotel rooms. All you will hear is the colouration and muddling effects of the room's resonances and untreated reflections. Do remember that at lower levels and with simpler arrangements, you are far less likely to excite the rooms problems.

To criticize any of the rooms as you have, and to make sonic judgements based on high level listening, really surprises me given your seeming understanding of the subject.

 

Hi,

Most commercial systems tend to be quite "equalising" to recording quality, based on my (somewhat limited) experience. I tend to call that type of sound "ordinary". It is observable on a wide range of gear, regardless of price. Many people clearly like that type of reproduction, the one which to me is not particulary appealing.

I will say again that I have no problem with Titans comments as such, nor that he happend to not particulary likeing what he heard. I had the same experience in some of the rooms he rated quite highly, suggesting that what either of us considers "good sound" differs drastically.

I heard the same piece as he did (I put it on) and I heard the same thing. I merely part company with his assertation that the source of what we heard was caused by the system/room, as that was not the case, since there where enough recordings that did not display such strong ambiance, as it was not recorded in the recording.

I also accept that he may not have heard this previously as this is one of the things I do note with MY system, namely that such niceties happen like previously unintelligble lyrics become clear, noises previously unclear become identifiable as squeaking chairs, handeling noise of instruments etc.

Now WHY it does this and why most other audio gear does not do this is another subject for another thread and also for a good deal of "sorry trade secret" comments.

Ciao T