Question on ‘how do we listen’

Maybe your level of satisfaction is in direct proportion to the goals you have set your system to reach, ie. not too challenging ones. I realise this comes across as a sarcastic remark but I dont mean this disprespectfully.

My point is that people have different expectations and goals. Some people are happy with a system which gets their foot tapping - end of. Some people are actively trying to avoid a system with rich deep bass - they want things pacy and thus dry in the bass dept. Some people are looking for a big sound with broad brushstrokes - big speakers, lots of body but if detail is lacking no worries. But some people are looking for everything and I suppose I'm one of them and thus feeling satisfied is hard (ooo err).

I want a system that can produce a big sound. I want it to be able to push >116db levels. I want it to image like a ba5tard, I want it to reproduce rich and realistic timbre of voices and instruments, I want it to be able to party when I need it to, and to bring tears to my eyes when listening quietly in the evening...

On the subject of imaging - I dont think this is magazine speak, but yes magazines refer to this attribute. Looking back - it was the description of systems with great imaging in a few magazine articles back in the late eighties which got me really interested in hi-fi. I loved the idea that I could own a system which could bring to life this effect in my own living room. The description of a big band recording playing through a pair of Quad ESL - the author described how he could point to players sitting 15 feet beyond the back wall of his room - I found this concept fascinating and as a result my journey has been with this type of goal in mind. The same article described listening to the infamous track LFO (by LFO) to great effect through the same system - wow I thought, a system that can put you in a trance with its supernatural imaging, then rock your inner organs with possibly the greatest UK deep bass techno track - my kind of hobby!

For me, when sitting in a room, eyes closed, listening to a disk - if the reproduction presents an "image" of musicians and singers placed in a three dimensional space - I find this very beguiling. Note: this goal (and any hi-fi goal) is on top of my love for the music itself - not in place of and I have other system goals which somewhat contradict this one (see above).

Now just because it was a few magazine articles that kick started this interest for me doesnt mean I care any longer what magazines say, or that I read nomenclature in them and then try to find it in my system, but trying to attain a system which can reproduce whatever level of imaging is on the disk seems a natural goal. A system which doesnt reproduce the imagine available on the disk (be it articficial or not) is falling short IMO.

 

Lucky man.

Haven't looked at a hi-fi mag since I was 17 (maybe I should). Am very happy with the 'choose your system by listening' school of thought.
But.
I am aware that a 'better' system can also be a more particular one. The first time I listened to DSOTM on my current system (first change in 15 years) the alarm clocks had me jumping off the sofa. I had been happily sitting in front of my previous set-up accepting that this was what recorded music sounded like; only to find that there were more choices (ie differences in presentation) than I knew existed. So either you are, as you say, 'lucky enough to hear enough systems' or you try and work out what is going on (with the help of other's experience!) (before forums did people actually talk to each other?) before spending any more.

In the case of music that was created to be reproduced (eg a concept album) I think these concerns are more easily approached than where music was created to be performed and a recording is a secondary medium.

Have just seen greg's post as well and just to echo the not meaning to sound sarcastic sentiment (I am actually interested) - what brought about the recent changes in your system? ie new speakers etc.

 

i am not taking anything sarcasticlally

new speakers wre needed for several reasons,we moved house and the loungs was bigger so with a Sugden A21 i needed some easier to drive standmounts,because my wife banned floorstanders in the new abode

i am not saying i dont slip into silent admiration for my system during some great sounding cds,but i try not too,i just cant see the point over analysing when i havent the cash to change my gear

without a reference point,i wouldnt know imaging/soundstaging from sloppy fart noises

 

I take your point - my expectations are largely based on hope and faith (that there is hifi nirvana out there somewhere) rather than experience. In fact in my search I have generally been disappointed having heard systems I thought were likely to blow my mind... that did nothing for me at all.

I take comfort from my belief that some of the folks here have managed to put together systems which really are good, and didnt cost an arm and a leg. I feel my system is about 50% toward what I want.

 

Sound recordist friends of mine are split down the middle by how they record in stereo... Many record in M and S (i.e mono and difference) using a single MS mic (you can buy single stereo mics!). This gives the advantage of being able to vary the amount of stero information before mixdown, or even to discard it all if only the mono signal was needed.
Others would use a pair of crossed Schoeps mono mics in the classic AB stereo configuration - this gave ultimately the best stereo sound (due to not needing any processing afterwards), but only if positioning was perfect...
In TV and film recording, MS is used almost exclusively, the S track is usually ditched and the stereo info made up by the tracklayer/dubbing mixer..

 

...interesting debate, at first I thought this was going to be a string of messages with an underlying sentiment to slag off loudpseaker manufacturers which build models with a heavy design theory on 'the live experience', such as Von Schweikert and Mirage, to name but two.

It's definitely been a great read for me as we obviously have some accomplished musicians contributing to this forum as well as members with close links to the recording industry. Personally, I have been in a 'live' situation where you could definitely detect placement of musicians/instruments and others where the presentation is more like a 'wall of sound'.

This would indicate that not only in the recording studio and mastering stage do professionals mix in different ways but so do the artists and sound engineers setting up the live event use different methods to present their material.

The magazine reviewers do have the tendancy to use alot of buzz words, maybe this is a process of (in their own minds), retaining some kind of self importance, or they genuinely feel that their technical writing is giving the reading public valuable information,...you decide!

Having tested many speakers on both a personal and professional level, in my experience the speakers that not only have good timbre, timing and imaging but also soundstage definitely offer something in addition to those whose designers set soundstaging as a lesser design priority.

For me, the best way to describe it with models that do this properly is for them to disapear into the room so that there is an open image (as very common with omnipolar designs), which fills the room with music, but not in an unsettling surround-sound type manner (IMHO).

In the December 2003 edition of Hi-Fi News Ketih Howard did a very information article on 'the forgotten art of loudspeaker measurements', I think this would make further interesting reading to those that have contributed to this thread. And for those of you that are technically minded, there is a gem of a book called 'Audio Cyclopedia' by Howard M. Tremaine, published way back in 1959 with the second edition in 1977. This goes some way in explaining how manufacturers actually measure their loudspeaker designs soundstage capability (it also has some truly wonderful information on loudpseaker cabinet design's that date back to a series of tests performed in 1954 by H.F. Olson - designs which have later appeared in the industry as 'brand-new' and pioneering!!).

Plus, it is my own opinion that because we are all different and imperfect how can one person know exactly what another is hearing? (rhetorcial). I for one can recite instances where I have been in the same listening environment and picked up on things that other listeners have not and vice versa.

Once again, all we can do is listen for ourselves and make the decision accordingly.

 

You're quite right and this is what I started to say in my previous post.

Speakers that image better will tend to have less problems with phase and dispersion as the speaker goes from one drive unit to the next. Therefore they will also tend to sound better in other ways.

Also, if the speaker cabinets vibrate at certain frequencies or if there are internal resonances, the sounds made will be at odd's with the intended imagery. These are two additional ways in which speakers that image better are better.

 

When I was a "musician" lol I got a very distorted view of music. Mainly the lower parts dominated but certainly you very rarely got the whole picture. If you want to listen, be in the audience.

 

My theory, it belongs to me, it is mine etc etc

Music appreciation can be grouped into three distinct parts. Writing, performing & listening (criticism).

It is rare that anyone is gifted in all three or even two areas.

 

Depends on the venue!
When I used to play in bands the onstage sound was occasionally abysmal - though it wasn't too bad in the audience.. The worst place was the Greyhound in Fulham (years ago!) - this was the opposite with on-stage sound being fine, but what we couldn't hear was that the stage appeared to be acting as a giant boom-box, meaning that audience sound was swamped with mushy bass.
I went to see Stanley Clarke once (with Herbie Hancock, Omar Hakim and Wayne Shorter as the rest of the band!!!!) at the Royal Festival Hall. It was the best sound I'd ever heard there, and we were sat behind the band, in the choir. So we were getting mainly on-stage monitoring.
I also went to see David Helfgott doing his party piece at the Albert Hall, and teh sound was much better balanced where we were in the choir than in the main auditorium (though that could be because he kind of bangs it out - having a whole orchestra between us and him possibly helped!)