|
|
Post by pinkie on Jan 2, 2016 11:07:12 GMT
(Can't find a suitable smiley on here) - WARNING - Long Pinkie post alert!!!
The question was asked by Sue - and in over 30 years mucking about with this caper, I couldn't put it better myself. Let me rephrase it, and explain the topic of this thread
What I mean (she meant, without realising it) by that question, is how does one SUBJECTIVELY measure HiFi. (And possibly, an interesting additional question was can we compare that with conventional objective measurements results?)
I need to put in some definitions. HiFi - on this thread, is interpreted literally. Hi Fidelity. or maybe in the context of the question, HIGHER fidelity. Greater truth. More accurate.
It is not - "what makes a sound I like more?" - Subjectively that may be important, even more important to a listener - but it does not meet this definition of HiFi
So - Wonky mentioned the "improvement" from using BO!NG as a "window onto the music being cleaner" - borrowed from another forum leader. Another term I think central to this idea is from the "Linn chip" days of Ivor Tiefenbrun - namely that you can only lose information or distort it after the source. You cannot repair or enhance, and what is lost at the signal is lost forever. Whilst this was used to justify spending a student grant on an LP12 with a cheap LVV arm, tin nail cartridge, and speakers made from a Pringles tube in the madder moments of the 80's, it is nonetheless pretty obviously true
To THIS definition of HiFi.
What I am referring to therefore is which cues we use to believe that we have HiFi or better HiFi. In my case that is "the window on the music" stuff - namely, specifically instrument position and space. So my assumption is that the "space" I hear is there in the first place, and when I don't hear it, something has been lost or added. The space has been masked. It is not that the space is a fault which I hear when there is less HiFi. My working assumption is that space present is HiFi - and missing space is less HiFi.
That isn't, I am aware, what everyone concludes. Many focus on rythmn, bass slam, or whatever - and maybe they too are there at the start, and available only to lose down the chain. Or maybe they are part of "what makes a sound I like more?" - which at the beginning of this post was defined NOT as HiFi.
2 outstanding memories from my fooling around in this area help me realise what I am talking about. One was at a hotel near Brands Hatch, when I HiFi magazine had a promotional affair, most of the details of which I forget. I remember the big new "thing" was green felt pens for CD's. But my main memory is really enjoying the music and the system. Which was the full Linn Naim monty, including Bricks. Now it WAS NOT - by my definitions HiFi. It sounded good pretty much wherever you were in the room. I really liked it - playing the jazz and rock it was playing. It was warm, and engaging and vibrant and smooth. It was NOT HiFi - as earlier defined
Another memory was when I took the reference system home from PT and set it up in my Dad's living room for his friend Henry ( a serious classical music enthusiast) to listen to. There was the usual "space around instruments" and "air" but in spades. The set up was a bit odd - a large living room which was divided from the dining room by double sliding doors. Speakers were 3ft from the walls (gap where the sliding doors would be) and about the width of the door frame (ESL 63's sort of half overlapping the wall -but 3 feet away from it). Even with my eyes open the sound came from out of the patio on many of the good recordings. That is the most extreme example of the stereo illusion of depth that I ever remember - and I have probably been trying to get it again ever since (I've just realised we have the same double doors into the dining room arrangement at our new house - but Sue would have a fit. It's the opposite wall from the one planned)
So I have always associated "air" and "space around instruments" and "position" and "width" as being positive indicators of HiFi - that the original signal has not been lost or changed (distortion). Losing space is losing "fidelity". Even though of course the whole effect is a conjuring trick. WHen I "hear" the cello coming from a space in front of me, I clearly physically hear nothing of the sort - its coming from a point to the right of there and a point to the left of there. But the illusion is critical for me - perhaps a distracting grail quest like Singularity's which lures me into producing the illusion instead of just enjoying a tune.
Approaching the end of this Pinkie long post - rest assured
There is an interesting twist on this personal perception of what is "HiFi". Sue has added an element which is clearly critical and "first notice" for her, and which I haven't previously consciously been aware of. And that is a vertical dimension. All that width and depth I referred to as my "identifiers of HiFi" was 2 dimensional. (Left Right, and Front Back). Not Up Down . When something changes and Sue notices either a loss of HiFi or its restoration, she draws it as an arc over the speakers, contrasting it with a flat band between the drivers. I never spontaneously notice this - but can recognise it when she is referring to it. And other subtle things I have noticed always correlate positively with Sue's height obsession.
So my working hypothesis for now is that the "height" information is also part of the source signal, and losing height is losing fidelity.
OK - much too long already - "Where does the space around the instruments go?" - How do you SUBJECTIVELY measure HiFi?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2016 11:36:19 GMT
Great post and it's nice to the aspect of listening being considered again.
Space is a really interesting one for me because I LOVE this aspect of many systems but I also need and desire the sort of timing where things start and stop without any fudge. This is my priority and it means I can actually live without many spatial aspects if my primary need is fed.
One caveat for me is image height. I just can't get away with "ankle-biters" such as Royd Minstrels unless I raise them up. Same with miniatures on 20" stands. As I've said before, sloped or upward firing drivers really work well for me.
In short, if it has all the stop/start fireworks I love and it doesn't sound like a bunch of dwarves playing. I'm reasonably happy. If it also creates space without sacrificing the other two aspects, it's all good AFAIC.
I really don't care greatly about tonal balance, as accuracy apparently isn't needed for me to suspend disbelief. NB I'm not saying it's not important per se. It's just not something that's crucial to my enjoyment. Some systems will get closer than others to being all things to all men and good for anyone who seeks this. For me, there's more value in knowing how I "tick" and then working with that.
One final point. These things are really good to talk about because we often read and digest other people's opinions. If someone has a completely different value system to you, it may well be that they love things you hate and vice versa. Perhaps their recommendations may not suit you.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlanS on Jan 2, 2016 12:02:28 GMT
Space is only real when listening to a live recording of live instruments with microphones. All the rest is a manufactured illusion and might be recognised as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 2, 2016 12:31:25 GMT
I tend to agree its about the illusion of how it sounds
I do believe we wired a bit differently so different people need different cues to help them understand/appreciate music. Sensory perception does vary from person to person we also process differently.
In the end for me it boils down to enjoying the music.
How we get there is going to be different for all of us
|
|
ynwan
Rank: Trio
Posts: 185 
|
Post by ynwan on Jan 2, 2016 12:47:47 GMT
Most of my friends are very 'in to' their music. The other day a friend who hadn't previously visited my house came round to listen to my system as, although he loves music, he had never heard a 'proper' hi-fi. Oddly, he found the whole stereo imagery, space around instruments, thing very disconcerting indeed - distracting even.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Jan 2, 2016 13:51:01 GMT
My experience of 1970's Dolby A analogue masters was that so many rock and jazz/rock recordings were made in multi-mono form and mixed with a fairly 'dry' kind of sound. The vinyl players at the time tended to blend it a little and old-style valve gear extended this into a nice acoustic 'soup' I remember. Naim amps of the period did similar things to the perceived image, but in a different way (the interconnect cables needed widening the mono centre image but narrowing the extreme L/R I remember).
These days, I think that reverb and 'air' are added to the complete mix in subtle ways, to make the end mix sound a bit more realistic - try the original mix of 'Tales...' by The Alan Parsons project compared to the re-mix ten years later (both mixes now available on a double CD).
Even though the 'air' and 'space' we hear are only twenty or so db down on the main signal, it's amazing how some systems of yore tended to dilute this or all but remove it altogether.
Just some jottings. Hope they make sense to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jan 2, 2016 17:23:07 GMT
Great post and it's nice to the aspect of listening being considered again. Space is a really interesting one for me because I LOVE this aspect of many systems but I also need and desire the sort of timing where things start and stop without any fudge. This is my priority and it means I can actually live without many spatial aspects if my primary need is fed. One caveat for me is image height. I just can't get away with "ankle-biters" such as Royd Minstrels unless I raise them up. Same with miniatures on 20" stands. As I've said before, sloped or upward firing drivers really work well for me. In short, if it has all the stop/start fireworks I love and it doesn't sound like a bunch of dwarves playing. I'm reasonably happy. If it also creates space without sacrificing the other two aspects, it's all good AFAIC. I really don't care greatly about tonal balance, as accuracy apparently isn't needed for me to suspend disbelief. NB I'm not saying it's not important per se. It's just not something that's crucial to my enjoyment. Some systems will get closer than others to being all things to all men and good for anyone who seeks this. For me, there's more value in knowing how I "tick" and then working with that. One final point. These things are really good to talk about because we often read and digest other people's opinions. If someone has a completely different value system to you, it may well be that they love things you hate and vice versa. Perhaps their recommendations may not suit you. Thanks Andrew. And its interesting to hear that alternative "what matters to me" contribution. (If I'm honest, I was counting on you for it). The question remains "where does the space between the instruments go"? Is it adding a "space" colouration - or when the space goes has something from the source been lost? I think "which aspect matters to me most" is equally valid as a question. But not quite the same as the question I originally asked It was a fascinating insight from SWMBO. I'm not sure I have an answer that works yet - although I recognise it clarifies what I look for personally  |
|
ynwan
Rank: Trio
Posts: 185
|
Post by ynwan on Jan 2, 2016 23:17:28 GMT
I'm sorry, I didn't actually read your original post, just too much rambling and weird off topic juxtaposition of ideas for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 0:07:42 GMT
There is an interesting twist on this personal perception of what is "HiFi". Sue has added an element which is clearly critical and "first notice" for her, and which I haven't previously consciously been aware of. And that is a vertical dimension. All that width and depth I referred to as my "identifiers of HiFi" was 2 dimensional. (Left Right, and Front Back). Not Up Down . When something changes and Sue notices either a loss of HiFi or its restoration, she draws it as an arc over the speakers, contrasting it with a flat band between the drivers. I never spontaneously notice this - but can recognise it when she is referring to it. And other subtle things I have noticed always correlate positively with Sue's height obsession. So my working hypothesis for now is that the "height" information is also part of the source signal, and losing height is losing fidelity. OK - much too long already - "Where does the space around the instruments go?" - How do you SUBJECTIVELY measure HiFi? I think there are a couple of problems with your post in my view (and not the length of it per-se, although that doesn't help) 1: You conflate 'hifi' with stereophony - the latter has some mileage as a subject for discussion whilst the former is simply a jaded marketing term that past its sell by date a long time ago. 2: Your summary question(s) makes little sense for two reasons a) there is neither space nor instruments - so nothing 'goes' anywhere b) subjective perceptions are not amenable to objective method - the terms are linguistic opposites for a reason. If you rethink 1: you might be able to phrase 2: more clearly and in a way that enables a sensible response |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Jan 3, 2016 0:20:59 GMT
Well much depends on the source material and how it was recorded, I'd say. Anything that's not a direct feed into the mixing console will be recorded using microphones and will capture the sound source as both direct and indirect components, depending upon the characteristics of the microphone being used. So, if your hi-fi doesn't resolve both elements fully you'll lose-out on hearing the sense of acoustic and air, I'd say. But I'm no expert.
The Calrec Soudfield Microphone was developed in the late '70s, I think, mainly by Michael Gerzon - I think. The idea was to capture a 360 degree soundfield - which it did/does. Recordings were made using it and discs were available. The Ambisonic Decoder became available so you could play them back. It was a proper surround system, unlike the Quad systems around at the time (excluding JVC's discrete system) which were matrix and employed jiggery-pokery to get additional channels. I think the full set-up employed 8 speakers! L & R & Rears plus another set of 4 ABOVE these - although you could just use 6, having just the 2 upper front ones. Whatever that was recorded could be manipulated down to stereo, or even mono. As such, at one point the BBC did trial tests with it.
Not being a classical music fan, can't say how some classical recordings might fare. I remember Tony Falcuner did his recordings using a simple crossed microphone pair. Never heard any of his stuff but I can imagine them having bags of acoustic and air.
I would say that an "airy sound" is an indicator of a good system - although others might prefer other qualities like PRAT or detail retrieval or leg-buckling dynamics or whatever. It's what I miss when the mains isn't playing cricket. The overall sound sounds "bunged up" and lacking air ( Sorry Jez.).
Have to say though, the biggest factor in appreciating hearing aspects of a recording exist in their own time and space was due to a speaker set-up that I discovered yonks ago. The odd time I could get height information from a humble pair of Castle Richmonds. Oh yes…
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 1:50:55 GMT
The Calrec Soudfield Microphone was developed in the late '70s, I think, mainly my Michael Gerzon - I think. The idea was to capture a 360 degree soundfield - which it did/does. Recordings were made using it and discs were available. The Ambisonic Decoder became available so you could play them back. It was a proper surround system, unlike the Quad systems around at the time (excluding JVC's discrete system) which were matrix and employed jiggery-pokery to get additional channels. I think the full set-up employed 8 speakers! L & R & Rears plus another set of 4 ABOVE these - although you could just use 6, having just the 2 upper front ones. Whatever that was recorded could be manipulated down to stereo, or even mono. As such, at one point the BBC did trial tests with it. I think this gets to the nub of the confusion. The act of reproducing a stereophonic effect is not simply a question of using two of everything (two mics, two speakers) despite the common misconception, but of attempting to create a sense of 'solidity' or 3 dimensionality (what the root 'stereo' originally meant). In other words a sense of width, depth and height to the suggested soundstage which may (or may not) correspond to the original recording context. This is not necessarily bound to notions of accuracy or 'fidelity' but more whether the perceived effect is experienced by the listener as such (i.e. a credible 3 dimensional space in which separate instruments/vocalists can be distinguished clearly and 'placed' within the mindscape. 'Hifi' (if it has any real meaning) is not bound by this sense of 3Dness per-se ... it can also be applied to, for instance, an essentially dry recording of a solo story narrator whose voice is, essentially, monophonic. It's unfortunate that the two concepts have become muddled and knotted together to the extent that if a recording doesn't exhibit the requisite 3D characteristics expected of 'hifi' it can no longer qualify as such. Once the two are separated, it makes it much easier to make valid statements about the qualities of recorded material without the waters being unnecessarily muddy. |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jan 3, 2016 7:35:55 GMT
The question remains "where does the space between the instruments go"? Well, assuming it's there to start with, I think it gets lost as you lose overall system resolution. You start to lose the subtle low level cues of reverberation in the recording space. But that's for recordings of real instruments (i.e. not electronically produced) in a real venue - e.g. much classical, jazz, folk. As for rock / pop / dance etc - as previously mentioned by others, it's an artifact of arbitrarily engineered multitrack recording anyway. How good is the stereo imaging from the PA stacks at a rock concert? Wall of sound, I would imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jan 3, 2016 7:48:14 GMT
As for 'height', I really do not understand that one or appreciate its significance. But! -- 2 friends who value 'height' greatly say that my system does it just fine. Personally, I remain baffled.  Maybe I just take it for granted and the possible lack of height info is partly why I might find someone else's system less than convincing? I have no idea, it's not something I am conscious of. |
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jan 3, 2016 9:18:26 GMT
I think the "conflation of HiFi with stereophony" is not a problem. Nor is the question relevant only in the case of properly miked classical (or acoustic) recordings. The question applies equally to "fake space" created by a studio. The issue is Is the space there on the recording and when its lost, some fidelity has been lost? Or if not - and the opposite must therefore be true - how does the distorted illusion of space get created? But the question was really - if we are going to use a subjective rather than objective means of assessing Hi Fidelity Which one do you / have you used? How might we determine if its right? Hi Fidelity means "keeping the original". The space, on many recordings (and the height, and the width, and the depth). Are they truly there on the original and "lost" by compromised fidelity, or are they absent from the original and artificially created by loss of fidelity in the reproducing chain? My premis - my personal system of evaluation - the one Sue is self-evidently buying into, is that those cues ARE there on the original, and if they are not apparent on some equipment, that equipment has lost something. It is less HiFi than equipment which doesn't lose it. If the opposite is true - how might that work?  |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 3, 2016 10:02:12 GMT
So I have always associated "air" and "space around instruments" and "position" and "width" as being positive indicators of HiFi - that the original signal has not been lost or changed (distortion). Losing space is losing "fidelity". Even though of course the whole effect is a conjuring trick. WHen I "hear" the cello coming from a space in front of me, I clearly physically hear nothing of the sort - its coming from a point to the right of there and a point to the left of there. But the illusion is critical for me - perhaps a distracting grail quest like Singularity's which lures me into producing the illusion instead of just enjoying a tune. The balance has to be right between 'air and space' and impact, in my opinion. There is a world of difference between capturing a live sound that takes me to row E in the stalls of the Royal Festival Hall, where the acoustic of the hall is well recorded and makes me feel like being there, and the addition of artificial reverb or 'air' in a recording that loses impact because of it (Lana de Rey's Ultraviolence, for instance). Even a live recording can go too far, for instance the recent release from the Sistine Chapel where the mics pick up too much acoustic compared with the voices, making it somewhat of a soupy experience. However, if your system hasn't got the resolving power to reveal it (for instance, most car systems) then you're not going to be aware of it. In fact, I don't expect a car system to reveal any cues like ambience or air, I just hope that the basic integrity of the music is not spoiled. At home is a different matter and my system will reveal the good and the bad in recordings, where my brain demands more realism and yet more impact, too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 10:26:20 GMT
I was going to post something similar in terms of balance/compromise. The reason I tend to drift from valves/efficient free-space speakers to flat earth/against wall speakers is that impact and space often seem to trade off against each other. Compromise hasn't completely worked for me, so I tend to yearn for mpact/timing when I have spaciousness and vice versa. I've run two and even three systems at times to feed this. In a way, my love of Exposure comes from its ability to reproduce the best timing and impact whilst still doing a bit of the old spaciousness. Have I ever heard a system that does both? Of course, but never to the max. Closest was a Voyd Reference/Aidio Innovations/Snell combo. As for the question of whether less space means less fidelity, I believe so. But so does less of the other aspects. I'm sure some kit adds impact or speed when it wasn't there and the same goes for spaciousness. But then I really don't care about a bit of added spice if it makes the meal more satisfying. Others want the meal exactly as the chef cooked it, and that's great for them. Me,? I'd have no shame in reaching for the ketchup |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Jan 3, 2016 11:29:32 GMT
Who can say for sure? As I've said I'd say it has to be be there in the first place. So if it doesn't get reproduced then that's down to a lack of resolution in the system. At least it would appear so, on the face of it.
I've never had any high-retrieval system. Even so, I've enjoyed hearing a rock-solid palpable 3D images existing in their own time and space. I remember listening to Dusty Springfield's "The Look Of Love". The raspiness and palpability of the sax solo used to have quite an effect on my stomache! I also remember listening to Pink Floyd's "Time" on a one-time friend's system of a Rega 3, Nait 1 and Mordant Short Carnival IIIs. The chiming clocks sounded amazingly real with bags of space and total suspension of disbelief that it wasn't the real thing in front of me. And although the space was there, it couldn't produce palpable images.
If space is not there in there in the first place - where does it come from? Well in past, valve gear has been accused of adding it as an artefact of microphoney and others have accused solid state of stripping it away. I also remember both Hadcock and Mayware uni-pivot arms being accused of adding a false sense of space to their presentation.
But if a system doesn't create a sense of space - so what? It's just one aspect of what a system might be capable of. To some it might matter. To others it won't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 11:31:56 GMT
Off topic but I'm loving your new avatar and hoping it makes it beyond Twelfth Night
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Jan 3, 2016 11:44:23 GMT
I think it's neat!
Love gifs!
|
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Jan 3, 2016 11:54:43 GMT
I suspect good resolution is one requirement aside from good dispersion from the speakers. The rest of it is how we interpret the sound we hear, the better the resolution the more our brains fit in any gaps and fool us into believing we're are listening to real instruments. From what I can tell it's not possible to measure soundstage and imaging. This causes measurists angst who then blame our brains and get huffy about "oh this is just perceptual psychology". There are some people who can't pick up on imaging. I therefore believe that space, imaging etc are by products produced by our brains when the system and recording are in some way pure enough.
|
|
Maybe I just take it for granted and the possible lack of height info is partly why I might find someone else's system less than convincing? I have no idea, it's not something I am conscious of.
