Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 12:38:26 GMT
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? Clear to me you prefer to continue in ever decreasing woolly circles ... I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Jan 3, 2016 12:50:52 GMT
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? Clear to me you prefer to continue in ever decreasing woolly circles ... I'm out. As listener we are "measuring" the system with our ears but we are also using our own perception and experience of real instruments to embellish the sound. The better the recording and system the better we can embellish. High Fidelity is a dated concept now as a good level of fidelity is so easily achieved today. Slavish fidelity can be too much, ie most people want a house curve for bass and treble, not a totally flat FR so that's not hifi but it's better listening.
|
|
|
Post by steveeb on Jan 3, 2016 12:52:35 GMT
I had a visit from someone who said that he had never been able to hear this 'soundstage' of which they speak. But he heard it for the first time with single wideband drivers. Point source coherence? Talking of Avatars, have you bought the Sota Viotti One speakers then Clive?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Jan 3, 2016 13:05:57 GMT
Yes. I would agree that speakers, speaker set-up and the speaker/room interface have large effect on getting a believable soundfield.
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Jan 3, 2016 13:22:57 GMT
I had a visit from someone who said that he had never been able to hear this 'soundstage' of which they speak. But he heard it for the first time with single wideband drivers. Point source coherence? Talking of Avatars, have you bought the Sota Viotti One speakers then Clive? Steve, I have 2 sets of V1s with slightly differing specs. They are pre-production models that have been sent to me by MarkaudioSota. There's more info here: www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/1115/Markaudio_Sota_Loudspeakers_Preview.htm
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 3, 2016 13:27:06 GMT
How do you SUBJECTIVELY measure HiFi? Simple answer, you can't - which is why there are so many bun fights on Hi-Fi forums! Pig headed (generally older) obsessive men who all know best and won't accept they could be wrong - I include myself here too But in reality on-one is wrong. If what you have works for you, then that's the only measurement required.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Jan 3, 2016 14:16:22 GMT
I could just eat a sticky bun.
Have you got one?
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jan 3, 2016 15:03:07 GMT
I'm munching a chocolate-backed gingerbread round atm, will that do? it's yummy.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 3, 2016 15:10:28 GMT
I'd rather the sticky bun than the biscuit old bean.
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jan 3, 2016 15:23:00 GMT
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? Clear to me you prefer to continue in ever decreasing woolly circles ... I'm out. Gosh its rude in Hifi forums So am I
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 15:35:10 GMT
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? Clear to me you prefer to continue in ever decreasing woolly circles ... I'm out. Mods - this is out of order on a friendly hifi forum IMO.
|
|
|
Post by pre65 on Jan 3, 2016 15:45:16 GMT
I think Pinkys style does not help.
|
|
|
Post by steveeb on Jan 3, 2016 17:28:50 GMT
I had a visit from someone who said that he had never been able to hear this 'soundstage' of which they speak. But he heard it for the first time with single wideband drivers. Point source coherence? Talking of Avatars, have you bought the Sota Viotti One speakers then Clive? Steve, I have 2 sets of V1s with slightly differing specs. They are pre-production models that have been sent to me by MarkaudioSota. There's more info here: www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/1115/Markaudio_Sota_Loudspeakers_Preview.htmAs one of those one man band builders using Mark Audio drivers I'm following these developments with interest and pleasure. Mark's developments concerning wide dispersion seem quite pertinent to this discussion subject. Having read your OP again Pinky I think I better understand where you're coming from; not a question of how should we subjectively measure, quantify and scale a system to judge and define it's fidelity, but rather what are our personal limiters for suspension of disbelief. OK. I expect that image height is not an obsession for Sue but simply one of many elements that must be present to give the impression of being closer to an original sound creation event than to an obvious reproduction of one. For me Presence and Projection would rank highly beside a believable source free of localised speakers. I have also experimented with having speakers sited either side of a room opening to address the issue of the central rear wall limitation. The results and effect were consistent regardless of the system used, very open and 3D but rather impractical. The Decware corner horns advise placement like this, I think Clive's bay window is a more realistic approach. As others have said, the question of acoustic info on a recording must be separated between live and studio work. I used to have a system from Finland that was a patented concept specifically for the reproduction of live classical recordings and to reproduce the venue acoustic and dynamics, called Voima. I believe it was purchased by Dolby to contribute to their original system. The concept has one large centre speaker that delivers 80% of the sound, L & R combined. Then two small conventional stereo speakers at low volume to spread the soundstage cues and then 2-4-6 satellite speakers scattered around the room to deliver the ambient information, decoded out by something like (L+R) - (L-R). These satellites are literally scattered and position is not critical, behind the settee or on top of a cabinet, just not localised. My friend is a professional violin player and compares recordings of concerts he's attended and uses the largest current Tannoy DC in the centre. He is very critical of both venue and real instrument character reproduction. I gave up on this approach because it's next to useless for studio recordings, doing some really weird things with the applied effects. I had Jools Holland's piano sounding wonderful but inverted up on the ceiling, a most disconcerting experience! And what 'space' are we trying to reproduce with such fidelity? The end result is intended to be the illusion of a group of musicians playing together. In reality they are probably close-mike recorded in individual controlled acoustics, often not even playing at the same time. No artist ever intended their work to have it's component parts ruthlessly revealed, they are too busy trying to create a musical event. I'm happy following the 'they are here' approach rather than 'you are there' and as such I consider the sense of space and air around performers as a function of the speakers' and room interaction to create a realistic and believable acoustic space that suspends disbelief ,regardless of it's fidelity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 18:17:26 GMT
Clear to me you prefer to continue in ever decreasing woolly circles ... I'm out. Mods - this is out of order on a friendly hifi forum IMO. In what way is this 'out of order'? The OP launched this thread on a shaky premise based on woolly parameters; In response I asked for some precision in his terminology which would help to clarify the woolliness. This request was ignored and the same imprecise and inaccurate argument was pursued instead - an attitude which I consider rude. I stated an opinion and a reason for not wishing to discuss this topic any further within such a unsound framework. The topic itself is immensely interesting and goes to the heart of what should define an 'Audio Standard' but I think it worthy of the respect it deserves ... not simply a point of superficial banter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2016 18:50:20 GMT
Mods - this is out of order on a friendly hifi forum IMO. In what way is this 'out of order'? The OP launched this thread on a shaky premise based on woolly parameters; In response I asked for some precision in his terminology which would help to clarify the woolliness. This request was ignored and the same imprecise and inaccurate argument was pursued instead - an attitude which I consider rude. I stated an opinion and a reason for not wishing to discuss this topic any further within such a unsound framework. The topic itself is immensely interesting and goes to the heart of what should define an 'Audio Standard' but I think it worthy of the respect it deserves ... not simply a point of superficial banter. I found it rude. Pinky found it rude. Others found it rude. Perhaps you had good intentions, but at the time I thought not.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 3, 2016 20:43:38 GMT
High Fidelity is a dated concept now as a good level of fidelity is so easily achieved today. Arguable. On a cursory level, perhaps. However, true insight still comes at a price and you won't get it on an iPod with standard earphones. Not even close.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 3, 2016 20:52:21 GMT
Clear to me you prefer to continue in ever decreasing woolly circles ... I'm out. Mods - this is out of order on a friendly hifi forum IMO. On balance, it was a bit rude @mikmas However, you referred to pinkie 's posts/actions, so it was not ad hominem.
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Jan 3, 2016 20:58:34 GMT
High Fidelity is a dated concept now as a good level of fidelity is so easily achieved today. Arguable. On a cursory level, perhaps. However, true insight still comes at a price and you won't get it on an iPod with standard earphones. Not even close. Oh that's not how I meant it. I was meaning a "proper" hifi system need not be expensive to be high fidelity but I wasn't including lossy. The cost of entry to hifi being what....£1k, possibly less?
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jan 3, 2016 20:59:44 GMT
Getting back on topic, I have to admit initially I overlooked this thread simply because of the length of the OP's original post and something about how he does it, but, having applied a bit of discipline and read it in full, I think I have something to say on the subject. My system produces excellent three dimensional sound and the height and width and depth seems to defy the physical position and presence of the speakers. When listening, I love the space between instrument/voices and it gives me a totally satisfying listening experience, so much that my enjoyment is impervious to my knowledge that the presentation is totally artificial in comparison to the sound of live music presentation. I enjoy live music and over the years, I have visited rock concerts, classical orchestral and minimal part concerts, folk clubs etc in any number of varying venues all off which influence the overal sound by their own specific acoustics. I have yet to hear a live production that has this defined space between sounds that my system produces. Certainly I can hear some three dimensiality at a live concert, but it is less defined in that treble is not on the ceiling, left and right is not wider than the sound coming from the stage and the space between individual sounds seem to meld together so that although I can hear the violin on the left and the cello on the right, overall, there seems to be a combination of boundaries which brings together these, in this example, two sounds from two different spaces.
My conclusion is that my 'High Fidelity' system as actually significantly flawed (disregarding intended studio engineering effects; think Pink Floyd, The Wall, helicopter by way of obvious example) compared to live sound production but that does not trouble me because the artificial sound my system produces is in itself, a different art form and I absolutely get the satisfaction I want from it. When listening at home, reality of how it should sound as a live form is not important to me, because I'm not listening to that live sound. So I happily place my system and my live listening into two separate boxes and 'never the twain shall meet'.
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Jan 3, 2016 21:04:49 GMT
As one of those one man band builders using Mark Audio drivers I'm following these developments with interest and pleasure. Mark's developments concerning wide dispersion seem quite pertinent to this discussion subject. Steve, next time Mark Felon comes over I'll let you know, I expect you'd find chatting with him interesting. If you want to hear the V1s you're welcome drop by (Altrincham). Mark helped me resolve an issue his wide-dispersion (flatish cone) 12Ps gave me. Their wide-dispersion created havoc with the exposed beams in my cellar resulting is problematic treble. Mark is one of the few designers innovating, his make drivers available is great.
|
|