PinoyDVD: The Pinoy Digital Video & Devices Community
Home Theater => Audio => Speakers => Topic started by: Kevlar on Nov 07, 2005 at 03:05 PM
-
Speaker owners speak up!
The test CD to be used is the 'Best 80's Party Album... Ever!'
Track #2 is a song entitled 'The Promise'. It is performed
by the band 'When in Rome'.
Most analytical speakers should be able to reproduce the 'howling' sound
within the first 60 seconds of the song 'The Promise'.
The 'howl' is also repeated within the song's body though not as
prominent as that produced in the first 60 seconds.
If your speakers are able to reproduce this low-level detail,
list them here complete with the model number so we can have
a list of analytical/hyperdetailed speakers to purchase or to avoid.
(Some audiophiles don't like analytical speakers.)
- Kevlar
-
If you can rip the CD track into a wav or MP3 file, baka puedeng ma send as email attachment so I can try it out at home. Thanks. I'll PM you my email address if you can do this.
-
sir hindi kaya depende rin ito sa player and receiver na gamit mo?
-
sir hindi kaya depende rin ito sa player and receiver na gamit mo?
I read from another forum that horn speakers (Klipsch come to mind) are quite hard to tame, even by tube amps.
-
kef q1
jbl xti60
jbl xti20
All with howling detail, is it good or bad? ??? ??? ??? sabi ni misis devil's song ha ha ha ;D ;D ;D
-
kef q1
jbl xti60
jbl xti20
All with howling detail, is it good or bad? ??? ??? ??? sabi ni misis devil's song ha ha ha ;D ;D ;D
Actually, the more distinct the howl (that is, the clearer/stronger/louder), the more detailed
or analytical the speaker. If you have to 'struggle' just to hear the howl or find it almost
inaudible, the less detailed/analytical the speakers. My brother's DIY speaker is unable to
reproduce the howl at all.
av_phile1,
You can try searching for MP3's in the internet. 'The Promise' was a very popular
80's pop/new wave song so it should be easy to find it.
- Kevlar
-
Speaker owners speak up!
The test CD to be used is the 'Best 80's Party Album... Ever!'
Track #2 is a song entitled 'The Promise'. It is performed
by the band 'When in Rome'.
Most analytical speakers should be able to reproduce the 'howling' sound
within the first 60 seconds of the song 'The Promise'.
The 'howl' is also repeated within the song's body though not as
prominent as that produced in the first 60 seconds.
If your speakers are able to reproduce this low-level detail,
list them here complete with the model number so we can have
a list of analytical/hyperdetailed speakers to purchase or to avoid.
(Some audiophiles don't like analytical speakers.)
- Kevlar
Is it really the intention of the sound engineers of the CD manu to have this howling sound heard clearly in a very certain audio level measurement? If this is so, then i believe you are right that we can use this as benchmark to test the ability or test the characteristics of the player, amp or speakers to reproduce the same. :)
-
I never knew speakers had minds of their own. :)
We probably need to have a test cd with defined signals (amplitude and frequency from DC to 20KHz). Also need to have amplitude variation (10% to 90% peak, 50% to 100% peak etc etc) to test transient response and a reference set-up. Need to listen to the reference set-up then listen to the subject speaker.
-
I am currently on the process of acquiring a speaker system. Agree with Sir rascal
the criteria he said is only my consideration as of now.
Meron pa palang iba...will constantly read this trend for some significant information.
Cheers.
-
sir hindi kaya depende rin ito sa player and receiver na gamit mo?
agree- system synergy /takes all to tango.
*
http://www.whathifi.com/newsMainTemplate.asp?storyID=42&newssectionID=3
*
I am currently on the process of acquiring a speaker system. Agree with Sir rascal
the criteria he said is only my consideration as of now.
Meron pa palang iba...will constantly read this trend for some significant information.
Cheers.
* sir u may wana check this out.
http://www.whathifi.com/newsMainTemplate.asp?storyID=48&newssectionID=3
*
peace :)
-
I never knew speakers had minds of their own. :)
We probably need to have a test cd with defined signals (amplitude and frequency from DC to 20KHz). Also need to have amplitude variation (10% to 90% peak, 50% to 100% peak etc etc) to test transient response and a reference set-up. Need to listen to the reference set-up then listen to the subject speaker.
That's what professional equipment reviewers/critics do. They have a test disc or signal generators and a reference system. And ofcourse, lab-grade measuring instruments.
-
Is it really the intention of the sound engineers of the CD manu to have this howling sound heard clearly in a very certain audio level measurement? If this is so, then i believe you are right that we can use this as benchmark to test the ability or test the characteristics of the player, amp or speakers to reproduce the same. :)
Not really, it might not even be part of the sound mix at all, and the sound engineers probably don't
want you to hear it at all. Maybe the song was recorded late at night and the howl of a dog (or is it a wolf?)
near the studio unintentionally got into the recording... Whatever it is, that's the problem with
analytical/hyperdetailed speakers. Some 'trains', 'animals' and other things in the background can get into
the recording and be very audible in some analytical/hyperdetailed speakers but in some speakers,
they may not be audible at all.
No, you should not use this as benchmark to test the ability of the player, amp or speakers.
It's used to test a 'subjective' speaker trait: 'analytical/hyperdetailed' in which there is
no standardized/objective measurement. Analytical/hyperdetailed does not necessarily mean
'accurate' since some analytical/hyperdetailed speakers can sound 'bright' (another 'subjective term')
because of a skewed frequency response especially in the low frequencies.
:) Kevlar
-
It's very difficult to say that you have a hyperdetailed speaker because the sounds that may appear at a certain frequency may not appear at different frequency. Hyperdetailed at low freq but warm at high freq, or something like that ... I believe we need to test across the entire audio spectrum to establish if it is really hyperdetailed or not.
I've seen so many people buy this speaker only to have it changed in a few weeks or months because of some characteristic that was not previously heard on their previous speakers. So, to minimize the replace speakers cycle and to establish hyperdetail we need to go through an exercise of listening across the entire audio spectrum with measuring instruments or not. A (reference) and B (subject) comparison. Of course we need a good test cd.
-
Not really, it might not even be part of the sound mix at all, and the sound engineers probably don't
want you to hear it at all. Maybe the song was recorded late at night and the howl of a dog (or is it a wolf?)
near the studio unintentionally got into the recording... Whatever it is, that's the problem with
analytical/hyperdetailed speakers. Some 'trains', 'animals' and other things in the background can get into
the recording and be very audible in some analytical/hyperdetailed speakers but in some speakers,
they may not be audible at all.
No, you should not use this as benchmark to test the ability of the player, amp or speakers.
It's used to test a 'subjective' speaker trait: 'analytical/hyperdetailed' in which there is
no standardized/objective measurement. Analytical/hyperdetailed does not necessarily mean
'accurate' since some analytical/hyperdetailed speakers can sound 'bright' (another 'subjective term')
because of a skewed frequency response especially in the low frequencies.
:) Kevlar
You have an interesting track! I am interested to have a copy of the track so I can test my speaker set. Can you lend me a copy?
-
It's very difficult to say that you have a hyperdetailed speaker because the sounds that may appear at a certain frequency may not appear at different frequency. Hyperdetailed at low freq but warm at high freq, or something like that ... I believe we need to test across the entire audio spectrum to establish if it is really hyperdetailed or not.
I've seen so many people buy this speaker only to have it changed in a few weeks or months because of some characteristic that was not previously heard on their previous speakers. So, to minimize the replace speakers cycle and to establish hyperdetail we need to go through an exercise of listening across the entire audio spectrum with measuring instruments or not. A (reference) and B (subject) comparison. Of course we need a good test cd.
You are right, its difficult to say what is 'hyperdetailed' or not because you and I have different definitions
of this 'subjective' term. In general however, this subjective speaker trait refers to very high detail in
the mid to upper range frequencies because it is where the ear is most sensitive. Not so much for bass.
- Kevlar
-
You have an interesting track! I am interested to have a copy of the track so I can test my speaker set. Can you lend me a copy?
Yeah! ;D all the while i thought that the howling was intentionally placed. So i think the recording studio has leaks. Does the hearing or not hearing the alleged howling in the background really depends on whether or not the speaker has hyper detail qualities? How about matter about the sensitivity of the speaker? ;)l
-
Interesting discussion. There's also such a thing as a revealing system or speakers. I hope we don't confuse that with a "hyperdetailed" speaker. I really have no handle on what is "hyperdetailed" expect to assume it gives more detail than is necessarily found in the source material.
A revealing speaker is one that exposes certain musical or performance details that are absent or only vaguely hinted at in another speaker that is not as revealing. Accuracy and transparency will determine a revealing speaker to a large extent. But sometimes, the psycho-accoustic phenomenon called MASKING can do the same. The fewer stronger frequencies that mask other frequencies, the more detailed the impression is for frequencies that were not masked.
In the case of the howling CD, a revealing speaker might easily expose that. In the same way that faint triangles not heard in one speaker is revealed in another speaker. Or even faint coughng in the audience in a live classical performance can be heard more loudly in a revealing speaker. But I have to say that a bump at certain frequencies between 2k and 5k can easily reveal more details of an instrument playing at those frequences than a speaker that is totally flat at that same range. Similarly, a speaker with a suck out or valley at the lows can make the higher frequencies relatively more emphasized to give it more detail than one that is flat. MASKING in complex musical signals can make mid frequency details more pronounced in a speaker that exhibits low frequency dips reducing the incidence of stronger low frequency signals masking weaker signals.
My point is, while listening will tell you a speaker's subjective qualities, you will have to graph the frequency response curve of a speaker to really assess its qualities more objectively, whether it has peaks at certain points to give it more details or suckouts in some other parts where frequencies tend to sound stronger so as to lessen the masking effect. Most speaker specfications are totally useless and meaningless. A response of 30hz to 18khz with a deviation of + or - 3db won't tell the complete picture. That same spec can be had in another speaker that can completely sound different. That's because one speaker can be dipping -3db at 2khz while the other is peaking +3db in the same point. But they both have the same + or - 3 db deviation accross the same range. To get the complete picture, nothing less than a plotted response graph will do. Many speakers with about the same 30hz to 22khz +-3db responses have entirely dissimilar response curves. Just a thought.
-
Yeah! ;D all the while i thought that the howling was intentionally placed. Does the hearing or not hearing the alleged howling in the background really depends on whether or not the speaker has hyper detail qualities? How about matter about the sensitivity of the speaker? ;)l
he he he ;D ;D ;D Actually, am not after any trait of the speaker - just want to hear that howling!!! ;D ;D ;D
Maybe kevlar shud re-title the thread:
How analytical/hyperdetailed is your speaker in revealing the 60-second howl? ;)
Iba kasi kutob ko eh . . . baka may sub-material embedded sa music - ala "chant" ng dark forces :D
-
Sometimes what you hear in your speakers depends on your player, amplifier etch. Had a different test using "Percussion Fantasia" album with title zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. If you can hear the zzzzzzzzzz in normal listening level you might have a good player & amplifier. Can't recognized it using different Solid state amp even digital amp (in normal listening level) but with the 2a3 tube amp very revealing!. Just share my experience, might be related to "analytical/hyperdetailed ".
-
he he he ;D ;D ;D Actually, am not after any trait of the speaker - just want to hear that howling!!! ;D ;D ;D
Maybe kevlar shud re-title the thread:
How analytical/hyperdetailed is your speaker in revealing the 60-second howl? ;)
Iba kasi kutob ko eh . . . baka may sub-material embedded sa music - ala "chant" ng dark forces :D
aHobbit,
It's not a 60-second howl. It's really a short one, like a few seconds or so but it is repeated within
the body of the song and again, towards the end. Much like a dog/wolf (or is it a human howl?). :)
I think it's some midrange frequency detail. I tested the track to many speakers. Some reproduce
it audibly well, some barely audibly, and some, inaudible at all.
Anyway, for all of you who want to hear it, I think the CD is available at about P250 in most music
stores. Bootlegs abound but I don't know if the howls are as audible in those illegal copies as in the original.
The track ('The Promise') also has some strong bass lines which can be used to evaluate bass reproduction.
It goes from low, to lower to lowest. In most speakers, only the first two are audible, the lowest being barely
audible or not audible at all. In others, all three are equally audible to the same degree. Still in other speakers,
all you hear is loud boom! boom! boom! (no bass definition at all). :)
- Kevlar
-
based on what i heard when i played it,the howling is really part of the recording parang background effects, esp if you turn the volume up its very distinct.I dont think there's any special thing about how good or bad the speaker is.It is very audible kasi even doon sa portable cd player sa kitchen e meron kaya lang not so detailed.and odyopayl is right,dami dapat iconsider like the cd,the player,the amp,the processor,the cables/interconnects,the power source etc.Ill try tom sa car cd kung may howling pa din ;D ;D ;D
-
I think its intentional, I listened to the track using some very good earplugs and its sounds distinct. I don't think
the recording engineers missed hearing this part (the howling) or it was accidental. Try fiddling with an equalizer highlight the midband frequency and lessen the bass, you can actually hear the howling better.
-
i have When in Rome cd which has two remixed versions of "The Promise" but havnt done critcal listening while playing it :-\ coz i enjoy it a lot maybe ;D...yeah the first few bars could really give ur woofers a workout ...drums machines galore yata un...but im sure those howling effects is not a product of poor room acoustics or recording and home recording is not yet available then
...if you heard it 3 times(start,middle,end)...im positive that is intentional.. just my thoughts :)
-
Reviewers use the term "detailed" as a euphemism for a bright speaker.
-
Reviewers use the term "detailed" as a euphemism for a bright speaker.
detailed as a euphemism? are bright speakers that unpleasant? ??? ??? ???
-
...if you heard it 3 times(start,middle,end)...im positive that is intentional.. just my thoughts :)
Actually, I hear the 'howl' 4 times in the track 'The Promise'.
For the benefit of those who want to try it out, here are the
estimated times into the playback when you hear them:
1) 6-8 seconds into the intro of the song (least audible)
2) 14-16 seconds into the intro of the song (most audible)
3) 2 min, 25sec - 2 min, 27sec into the song (audible)
4) 2 min, 33sec - 2 min, 35sec into the song (more audible)
Sorry for the adjectives, I didn't measure with an SPL meter.
Incidentally, these 4 occurrences of the 'howl' which goes
like, 'hooooooo!' in a rising-falling intonation, are all heard
in the 'quiter' passages of the song where in there is no vocals
and only the piano is playing and the bass tones have subsided.
It is also worthy to note that the gap between the first 2 occurrences
(1 & 2) is 8 seconds and the next 2 occurrences (3 & 4) is also 8 seconds.
I should emphasize that the howls are not 2 seconds long. They are about
only 1 second long but I gave 2-second ranges to ensure you won't miss
them.
As I mentioned, many speakers I've tested using the track are able
to reproduce the 'howls' to varying degrees. Some barely audibly, others
quite audible and still others, not audible at all. Also, some speakers can
only reproduce the loudest of the 4 occurences, some 2 out of 4, some
3 out of 4, and some, all 4, albeit, not at the same audibility level.
- Kevlar
-
detailed as a euphemism? are bright speakers that unpleasant? ??? ??? ???
They can be. I listened to the MS914 in 5th Ave, Park Square 1 mated w/ a bright sounding amp. Masakit talaga sa tenga.
-
ok ;D
-
I don't think 'bright' speakers or speakers with high treble levels
(and consequently high treble detail/[I prefer to call it 'glare'])
will be able to reproduce the howl well, which is a midrange
detail.
I also don't think speakers with high bass levels, especially
those in the midbass, will be able to reveal the howling detail
as high midbass levels can easily mask the howls.
Also, you will note that some headphones/earphones
reproduce this low level detail (howl) whilst some loudspeakers
do not.
I'd like to reiterate that I am not discriminating between speakers
or implying that only good speakers should be able to reproduce the howl
or that bad speakers will not be able to reproduce the howls at all.
B&W's P600,000++/pair Nautilus 801 speakers actually don't reproduce
any howls at all, mind you. I still have to test the track to Revel Salons
(another P600,000++/pair speakers) to see if I hear any audible howls.
Again, I'd like to emphasize that this test should not be used to
gauge speaker performance or discriminate between them.
It's just an arbitrary grouping of analytical or hyperdetailed speakers,
(which some audiophiles hate and some like) using the track I suggested
('The Promise').
:) Kevlar
-
.I'd like to reiterate that I am not discriminating between speakers
or implying that only good speakers should be able to reproduce the howl
or that bad speakers will not be able to reproduce the howls at all.
B&W's P600,000++/pair Nautilus 801 speakers actually don't reproduce
any howls at all, mind you. I still have to test the track to Revel Salons
(another P600,000++/pair speakers) to see if I hear any audible howls.
.
As usual, price is not an indicator of performance! ;D ;D ;D
It is just saying some low-cost speaker (or any audio gear for that matter) can easily compete with pricier speaker (or any audio gear for that matter) in performance. Personally have no inclination that because so so speaker is of so much is a good-performing speaker! :P :P
-
As usual, price is not an indicator of performance! ;D ;D ;D
I agree, price is not necessarily an indicator of performance.
It can be, however, for some speakers, especially those
from the same brand. :)
Anyway, I just read an article from the internet that some notable high end speakers
(very expensive ones like those manufactured by Wilson Audio), actually
have deviations by as much as +/- 8dB from the ideal 'flat' frequency response
to bring out a desired effect like a larger soundstage, a stronger bass, extended trebles
or more detail or probably, hyperdetail.
It also went on to say that there are only a few speaker manufacturers
left out there that really strive for a 'flat' frequency response in speaker
design because most speaker manufacturers would want to make their
speakers stand out/sound different from the rest and reproduce specific
recordings with startling realism (frequently better than what was really
recorded on the CD if the speaker were ruler flat/accurate).
They don't care if other music genres sound mediocre so long as their
speakers sound incredibly live and real for the specific music genre they are
targetting at, it's ok for them. Their credo here seems to be to 'customize'
speaker response for optimum music reproduction of specific music genres,
and deviate from the flat response as they will have to, in order to favor
certain speaker traits which will bring out the best of their speakers in a
specific genre of music they are targetting at.
Hmmm... I think I get their point... I think they don't want to be a 'jack of all trades',
'master of none' when it comes to music reproduction. They'd rather be excellent
in some music genres, never mind mediocrity in the rest, rather than sound very good
in all music genres but never really excellent in any one of them.
- Kevlar
-
I agree, price is not necessarily an indicator of performance.
It can be, however, for some speakers, especially those
from the same brand. :)
Anyway, I just read an article from the internet that some notable high end speakers
(very expensive ones like those manufactured by Wilson Audio), actually
have deviations by as much as +/- 8dB from the ideal 'flat' frequency response
to bring out a desired effect like a larger soundstage, a stronger bass, extended trebles
or more detail or probably, hyperdetail.
It also went on to say that there are only a few speaker manufacturers
left out there that really strive for a 'flat' frequency response in speaker
design because most speaker manufacturers would want to make their
speakers stand out/sound different from the rest and reproduce specific
recordings with startling realism (frequently better than what was really
recorded on the CD if the speaker were ruler flat/accurate).
They don't care if other music genres sound mediocre so long as their
speakers sound incredibly live and real for the specific music genre they are
targetting at, it's ok for them. Their credo here seems to be to 'customize'
speaker response for optimum music reproduction of specific music genres,
and deviate from the flat response as they will have to, in order to favor
certain speaker traits which will bring out the best of their speakers in a
specific genre of music they are targetting at.
Hmmm... I think I get their point... I think they don't want to be a 'jack of all trades',
'master of none' when it comes to music reproduction. They'd rather be excellent
in some music genres, never mind mediocrity in the rest, rather than sound very good
in all music genres but never really excellent in any one of them.
- Kevlar
Nice touch here kevlar! :D
This should help newbie that in buying speakers (and other audio gear for that matter) - dont read the hypes (recommendations)
- know what you want to hear (your music materials)
- know how you want it to be heard (your subjectivity in listening)
AUDITION!!!
-
...
Anyway, I just read an article from the internet that some notable high end speakers
(very expensive ones like those manufactured by Wilson Audio), actually
have deviations by as much as +/- 8dB from the ideal 'flat' frequency response
to bring out a desired effect like a larger soundstage, a stronger bass, extended trebles
or more detail or probably, hyperdetail.
Wilson Maxx? They took quite a beating from the Audio Perfectionist.
It also went on to say that there are only a few speaker manufacturers
left out there that really strive for a 'flat' frequency response in speaker
design because most speaker manufacturers would want to make their
speakers stand out/sound different from the rest and reproduce specific
recordings with startling realism (frequently better than what was really
recorded on the CD if the speaker were ruler flat/accurate).
Canadian speakers try to attain a certain standard when it comes to frequency responses. If one looks for "engineered" speakers, one should start w/ them. Unfortunately, we only have PSB's.
-
This should help newbie that in buying speakers (and other audio gear for that matter) - dont read the hypes (recommendations)
- know what you want to hear (your music materials)
- know how you want it to be heard (your subjectivity in listening)
AUDITION!!!
Mahirap pa rin para sa akin itong audition, audition, audition lalo na sa speakers. Bakit:
1. Iyung set-up sa shop ibang ibang sa set-up ko
2. After some time, nagmumukhang pare-parehas ang tunog
3. Kailangan gumuhol ng mahabang panahon para makuha iyung "character" nung speakers
Kaya para hindi ako mahirapan:
1. Double check sa specs at graphs
2. Tingin sa budget
3. Magbasa pero huwag padala sa mga iba't ibang pahayag ng sinuman
- Hindi porke British, American o Japanese maganda na
4. Kung posible bumili ng gawang Pilipino
5. Masiyahan kung ano man ang nabili
Iyung lang po ...
Rascal101
-
Consider room accoustic like my setup heard it in other room/house and notice ibang iba.
-
bumblebee,
Canadian made ang Paradigm sir.. :)
-
bumblebee,
Canadian made ang Paradigm sir.. :)
I checked their site. Yes. Paradigms and PSBs :) Thanks, Sir Hans :)
-
I agree, price is not necessarily an indicator of performance.
It can be, however, for some speakers, especially those
from the same brand. :)
Anyway, I just read an article from the internet that some notable high end speakers
(very expensive ones like those manufactured by Wilson Audio), actually
have deviations by as much as +/- 8dB from the ideal 'flat' frequency response
to bring out a desired effect like a larger soundstage, a stronger bass, extended trebles
or more detail or probably, hyperdetail.
It also went on to say that there are only a few speaker manufacturers
left out there that really strive for a 'flat' frequency response in speaker
design because most speaker manufacturers would want to make their
speakers stand out/sound different from the rest and reproduce specific
recordings with startling realism (frequently better than what was really
recorded on the CD if the speaker were ruler flat/accurate).
They don't care if other music genres sound mediocre so long as their
speakers sound incredibly live and real for the specific music genre they are
targetting at, it's ok for them. Their credo here seems to be to 'customize'
speaker response for optimum music reproduction of specific music genres,
and deviate from the flat response as they will have to, in order to favor
certain speaker traits which will bring out the best of their speakers in a
specific genre of music they are targetting at.
Hmmm... I think I get their point... I think they don't want to be a 'jack of all trades',
'master of none' when it comes to music reproduction. They'd rather be excellent
in some music genres, never mind mediocrity in the rest, rather than sound very good
in all music genres but never really excellent in any one of them.
- Kevlar
Try to notice Bristish made speaker di ba more in the mid band ( vocals ) sya compare to US made speaker but i maybe wrong.. :)
-
detailed as a euphemism? are bright speakers that unpleasant? ??? ??? ???
They can impress you for a while but after extensive listening bright speakers cause listener's fatigue.
-
Consider room accoustic like my setup heard it in other room/house and notice ibang iba.
You may also note (if you experiment) that placing your speaker at different location in the same room can also yield different sonic performance. I encounter one post of arnoldc in that HE ROTATED HIS LISTENING ROOM because he has a bass hole in the middle ;D ;D ;D
I appreciated the post because I did the same with mine. I can not do much with my room acoustics (no time, dont want to fight for WAF), and have limited space to position my sub - but I walk around while placing my speakers/sub at feasible positions - and then PRESTO!!!
Got good mid-hi resolution - with that glorious LOW, and I mean the LOW that creeps and send shivers to your body - and shake the picture frames in the wall even at low volume! ;D
acoustic can help, but in typical homes - speaker placement can do the magic!
-
Anyway, I just read an article from the internet that some notable high end speakers
(very expensive ones like those manufactured by Wilson Audio), actually
have deviations by as much as +/- 8dB from the ideal 'flat' frequency response
to bring out a desired effect like a larger soundstage, a stronger bass, extended trebles
or more detail or probably, hyperdetail.
It also went on to say that there are only a few speaker manufacturers
left out there that really strive for a 'flat' frequency response in speaker
design because most speaker manufacturers would want to make their
speakers stand out/sound different from the rest and reproduce specific
recordings with startling realism (frequently better than what was really
recorded on the CD if the speaker were ruler flat/accurate).
They don't care if other music genres sound mediocre so long as their
speakers sound incredibly live and real for the specific music genre they are
targetting at, it's ok for them. Their credo here seems to be to 'customize'
speaker response for optimum music reproduction of specific music genres,
and deviate from the flat response as they will have to, in order to favor
certain speaker traits which will bring out the best of their speakers in a
specific genre of music they are targetting at.
Hmmm... I think I get their point... I think they don't want to be a 'jack of all trades',
'master of none' when it comes to music reproduction. They'd rather be excellent
in some music genres, never mind mediocrity in the rest, rather than sound very good
in all music genres but never really excellent in any one of them.
- Kevlar
This is precisely why some serious audiophiles have speakers meant for small band jazz and chamber music. And a separate set for large orchestral music. This is already old knowledge for most audiophiles - that some speakers sound better in certain musical genres. And even amplifers, I must add.
Manufacturers have long considered it a great design and production challenge to achieve true anechoic FLAT frequency response speakers. The design goals and cost involved to overcome the laws of physics in sound propagation can be overwhelming. That is why very few speakers can really be considered FLAT in an anechoic environment. It is almost a correct generalization to say that ALL speakers have their respective sound coloration. OR what is called sound signature. OR timbre (that's why there's such a thing as timber matching in multiple speaker set-ups) A speaker that has FLAT FR does not have TIMBER, because it has no sonic coloration.
Designing speakers the market can afford has always been a product of COMPROMISES in this or that aspect or a combination (apart from freqeuncy response curves you have time and phase alignment of multiple drivers, cabinet diffractive qualities, on and off axis dispersion trait, cabinet and driver material resonances, crossover phase shifts, beaming qualities, etc, etc., all of which determine the coloration or timbre of speakers.)
And knowing this, many brands have adopted a design philosophy that doesn't aim for flat frequency response, but rather on a more easily attainable EUPHONIC approach where the untameable characteristic peaks and valleys of a speaker are deliberately harnessed to give the speaker its unique sonic signature. Sonus Faber and other big names in speakers have adopted this philosophy.
-
They can impress you for a while but after extensive listening bright speakers cause listener's fatigue.
Depends on your age. Audiophiles in their 40s can benefit from bright speakers.
-
Depends on your age. Audiophiles in their 40s can benefit from bright speakers.
he-he-he ;D
Anu 'ka mo?
-
he-he-he ;D
Anu 'ka mo?
este ... tatang! ;D
-
Kevlar very nice explanation indeed,natumbok mo ;D Different persons have different taste bec they have different ears thus a lot of speaker types and models ;D ;D ;D so what may be unpleasant,tiring or irritating to some can be perfect to others,and vice versa.Its good that we have these healthy discussions once in a while so we can voice out our experiences but i hope it does not come to a point that we're already forcing our fellow member to consider what we want and NOT WHAT THEY WANT.Lets just encourage and support each other with our same hobby without giving any incosiderate comments ;) to be honest medyo offensive lalo na kung pati brands ay minemention.sorry guys ha medyo tinamaan kasi ako he he he.Sir avphile bata pa po ako kahit mukha na akong lolo ;D ;D ;D
-
ricky,
You have a Sonus Faber?
:D Kevlar
-
Sir Avphile,
Ganun ba?? naku po pero early 30's pa naman ako. ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm in my early 30's also. 32 to be exact. ;D
Although sometimes I sound a lot older in my posts.
;D Kevlar
-
kevlar, not sonus faber but sinus fiber na sticky pa lol.35yrs old here pwede pala tayo magbabarkada eh. Come to think of it, ok na din na ma judge as bright yung speakers ko without really hearing it kasi atleast matalino pala ito ha ha ha. joke lang po. have a nice day guys.
-
Sir Avphile,
Ganun ba?? naku po pero early 30's pa naman ako. ;D ;D ;D
People start to haved diminished hearing accuity by mid 20s, starting at 19khz. By late 30s, they'll have greater difficulty hearing above 18khz. I think this has been discussed elsewhere. So enjoy your music while still in your prime.
-
And knowing this, many brands have adopted a design philosophy that doesn't aim for flat frequency response, but rather on a more easily attainable EUPHONIC approach where the untameable characteristic peaks and valleys of a speaker are deliberately harnessed to give the speaker its unique sonic signature. Sonus Faber and other big names in speakers have adopted this philosophy.
Actually, it's not that many notable speaker companies can't attain reasonable flat response given the
ultimate driver limitation. Dips as big as +/- 10 dB can easily be avoided or reduced further during the
design stage. But why are they present in very expensive speakers like the Wilson WATT?
It is not because they can't do better in crossover design, or that it is the ultimate driver limitation,
rather, it is because they deliberately want their speakers to sound that way; to highlight a saleable
trait like 'hyperdetail', 'expansive soundstage', powerful bass, sparkling highs etc.
To them, the ultimate goal is not to make the speaker reproduce the recording accurately,
but to reproduce excellent, palpably real sound, that is not limited by the fidelity
of the recording. They want to go beyond what was recorded and 'simulate' a beautiful
live performance even if the live performance really sounded crappy.
The result of these frequency response manipulations can actually make the reproduced sound
'larger than life' much like 'drama' can move you more into tears than 'real life'.
Of course it is not what is really accurate, and many purists will argue that the practice
is not hi-fi, but if it achieves the ultimate goal of 'touching lives' or 'touching the soul',
like what a 'live performance' is supposed to do, then why not?
If you can make an MP3 sound like a high quality recording by having deviations as big as
+/-10 dB from the ideal flat frequency response, then why not? It's what sells for them.
It is also why only a few speaker manufacturers out there still stick to the 'flat response'
is best or 'accurate' is best philosophy.
- Kevlar
-
Actually, it's not that many notable speaker companies can't attain reasonable flat response given the
ultimate driver limitation. Dips as big as +/- 10 dB can easily be avoided or reduced further during the
design stage. But why are they present in very expensive speakers like the Wilson WATT?
It is not because they can't do better in crossover design, or that it is the ultimate driver limitation,
rather, it is because they deliberately want their speakers to sound that way; to highlight a saleable
trait like 'hyperdetail', 'expansive soundstage', powerful bass, sparkling highs etc.
That's exactly my point. By adopting a design philosophy that puts greater emphasis on putting "drama" to the sonic signature, many brands can concentrate on other aspects of speaker production without having to bother with the difficult, expensive and often frustrating effort at getting FLAT FR. Moreover, they believe that if ALL speaker brands start to come out with really FLAT FR speakers, there'd be no sonic distinction between these speaker brands. A marketing nightmare. Because a really FLAT FR speaker has no sonic signature, no timber. In short, it would have no defining sonic characteristic to distinguish it from other equally FLAT FR speakers. Timber matching would no longer exist, as brand A and brand B, being identically FLAT would have the same sonic trait.
To them, the ultimate goal is not to make the speaker reproduce the recording accurately,
but to reproduce excellent, palpably real sound, that is not limited by the fidelity
of the recording. They want to go beyond what was recorded and 'simulate' a beautiful
live performance even if the live performance really sounded crappy.
The result of these frequency response manipulations can actually make the reproduced sound
'larger than life' much like 'drama' can move you more into tears than 'real life'.
Of course it is not what is really accurate, and many purists will argue that the practice
is not hi-fi, but if it achieves the ultimate goal of 'touching lives' or 'touching the soul',
like what a 'live performance' is supposed to do, then why not?
You echoe the design philosophy of Franco Serblin of Sonus Faber almost to a T. To him, crafting a speaker is like crafting a Stradivarius violin. It is more an ART than a science. His philosophy is aimed at pleasing the ears through ART. Not to the science-based Hi-fi standards. And that is why Sonus goes to great lengths to make their products not only pleasing to the ears, but also pleasing to the eye. The result is as much a wonderful piece of furniture as it is a musical instrument that together make them heirloom-grade.
I have nothing against such design philosophies in speakers. As anywhere else, the hobby is divided between subjectivists and objectivists. Between the Euphonic and the Hi-Fi. True Hi-Fi aims for fidelity to the recorded information with nothing added or subtracted along the audio chain all the way to the speakers and room accoustics. And that means FLAT frequency response to begin with. Nothing more, nothing less. Hi-fidelity aims to minimize or control as much as possible the many VARIABLES that enter the playback chain so that the end result is pure fidelity to the recorded information.
OTH, aiming to be Euphonic, then you can manipulate the signals to whatever the designer feels give "drama" and "larger then life" attributes to the signal. The philosophy certainly caters to the ears and the subjective biases of the listener on what he personally considers as giving him emotional highs when listening. There is nothing Hi fidelity about this philosophy. By manipulating the FR performance of a speaker to give it oomph or drama the speakers create another VARIABLE in the home playback and reproduction process. It's guaranted you'll never hear exactly how the recorded information was meant to sound. Aiming to be euphonic by emphasizing or de-emphasing this or that part of the audio spectrum has it limits as you can never be euphonic for all types of musical genre. As a result there's a good chance that this design philosophy will result in speakers that sound good in Jazz, but sound not as good as another with a different emphasis/de-emphasis elsewhere in heavy classics. Which is why using such speakers, you could end up with one set for each musical genre you like to hear. If you can afford it, why not? It's just another road to your sonic nirvana.
-
To them, the ultimate goal is not to make the speaker reproduce the recording accurately,
but to reproduce excellent, palpably real sound, that is not limited by the fidelity
of the recording. They want to go beyond what was recorded and 'simulate' a beautiful
live performance even if the live performance really sounded crappy.
...it achieves the ultimate goal of 'touching lives' or 'touching the soul',
like what a 'live performance' is supposed to do, then why not?
I envy BOSE! ::)
As always, it has high WAF -Wife acceptance factor! ;D
I think BOSE is not alone - what about speaker cable company like monster? ;D
The WILL-BUY-WHAT-I-WANT buyer from WILL-SELL-WHAT-YOU-WANT seller economics ! ;)
Hey, we do not look for speaker with flat response! We look for speakers with listenable musical sounds! ;D
Who needs accurate/flat response? - the recording studio! ;D
Accurate (or flat if you may) speaker will only have you sell them in a short time after finding that all your music materials were recorded crap! ;D ;D ;D The best speaker could be the one that makes beautiful music out of all crap recording!
Amplifier just do the same - that's why you have following of tube amps - with its varied signature! Take the amp distortion of your choice! ;D ;D
-
In short, it would have no defining sonic characteristic to distinguish it from other equally FLAT FR speakers. Timber matching would no longer exist, as brand A and brand B, being identically FLAT would have the same sonic trait.
This is a nightmare!!! I don't want this to happen... ;D
Surely, nobody wants his speakers to sound the same
as everyone else's speakers! That would be
audio 'communism'! ;D
;) just kidding!
You echoe the design philosophy of Franco Serblin of Sonus Faber almost to a T.
Geez! I've never read anything about Franco Serblin (of Sonus Faber)
or any of his sonic principles... We must be 'soul' mates... ;D
I guess I should be dumping my B&W's 600 s3's for Sonus Fabers which
can produce lovely music out of my crappy pop/rock CD's! ;D
-
This is a nightmare!!! I don't want this to happen... ;D
Surely, nobody wants his speakers to sound the same
as everyone else's speakers! That would be
audio 'communism'! ;D
It's good manufacturers can NEVER ever come out with an ideal or truly transparent and neutral speakers. The design and production effort and cost to do so begins to climb exponentially as you approach it. And there's always a limit to where they can do that at the same time continue to price itself even within exotic markets. That is why even among the most notably transparent, accurate and neutral speakers, there's still something left untouched or compromised to distinuish it sonically from the other. Thus, every speaker brand or model, from the cheapest to the loftiest, still carry its own sonic signature or coloration, in varying degrees.
-
This is a nightmare!!! I don't want this to happen...
Surely, nobody wants his speakers to sound the same
as everyone else's speakers! That would be
audio 'communism'!
just kidding!
to me the best speakers would be ones that make us forget that we are listening to the speakers, but to the music instead! ;D
funny, but i have not yet met such a pair of speakers!
-
If the idea is to build a certain level of coloration to create more 'drama,' what factor then has more weight in the final sound reproduction of a speaker--the design or voicing of the speaker or its interaction with the room its in? Put differently, will an SF always sound 'essentially' an SF regardless of where you put it?
I guess there's no definitive answer but as a rule of thumb?
-
If the idea is to build a certain level of coloration to create more 'drama,' what factor then has more weight in the final sound reproduction of a speaker--the design or voicing of the speaker or its interaction with the room its in? Put differently, will an SF always sound 'essentially' an SF regardless of where you put it?
I guess there's no definitive answer but as a rule of thumb?
Different vendors would have a lot of options from which to choose to color their speakers, deliberately or not. Speaker design is always the sum of compromises in this or that "factor." It often depends on what they are willing to spend to design and build their speakers for a certain market price point. And yes, in addtion to the speaker signature, room accoustics would further add to the coloration. Any brand of speaker would sound differently in different rooms of different geometry and material, in varying degrees.
Just to illustrate. The speaker cabinet's diffractive quality is one of the most telling factor that colours its sound. Almost every designer knows that the more curved the cabinet edges are, the less diffraction. But making curved cabinets adds to the cost of production. But it's also possible that part of the design paramter to attainr a certain frequency response curve require sharp edges to harness the diffractive quality where a certain range of frequencies can peak to give "drama" or emphasis to the driver's natural range. So you get a speaker with sharp cabinet edges.
-
People start to haved diminished hearing accuity by mid 20s, starting at 19khz. By late 30s, they'll have greater difficulty hearing above 18khz. I think this has been discussed elsewhere. So enjoy your music while still in your prime.
An audiophile listens to the sound, while a music lover listens to the music. If the above-quoted premise is true to the whole universe, then it is better to be a plain music lover. ;D
-
to me the best speakers would be ones that make us forget that we are listening to the speakers, but to the music instead! ;D
funny, but i have not yet met such a pair of speakers!
he he he :)
When I want to be awake, I listen to the speakers! :D :D :D
When I want to sleep, I listen to the music! ;D ;D ;D
-
early 30s ba kamo??? are you sure?? hehehe! peace po!
-
Makikisingit lang po.
Brinowse ko lang ung mga post dito sa thread quickly. In my experience, detailed speakers do not necessarily make them analytical. May mga narinig na akong speakers na detailed pero very musical din.
Pareho tayo ng pagkaalam nung nagsisimula pa ako sa audio, pero nung makarinig na ako ng iba ibang set-up, i realized na detail does not necessarily mean analytical. Details presented in a coherent and tonally correct manner will make the sound extremely musical :)
For example, sonus faber speakers. Pag pinakinggan mo ang concertino at cremona auditor, most likely, ang conclusion mo ay malayong mas malinaw or mas madetalya ang auditor. Pero mas analytical ba ito?? Actually, hindi. Mas musical pa nga, kasi mas naririnig mo yung emotion ng singer o nung instrument.
Yun lang po :)
-
If you want to test the frequency range/analytical capability of your loudspeakers: Try also the 24-bit CD of Spyro Gyra - The Collection (10 years after). Make your volume around -10db (quite loud) dito masusubukan kung kayang i-produced ng speakers ninyo iyong lahat ng instruments na ginamit ng Spyro Gyra during the recording. Kase some other known brands ay nagiging muddy at hindi nito ma-define ng maayos iyong mga instruments. Maganda pakinggan ito kase very detailed ang recording and it's Jazz.
Or check these websites for your reference cds:
www.store.acousticsounds.com
www.testscd.com
www.referencerecordings.com
Goodluck...(The Practical Audiophile)
-
In my humble opinion, wala pong kinalaman ang frequency range sa pagiging analytical ng speakers :( :( :(
Mas maganda siguro kung i define nyo muna ang ibig sabihin ng Analytical :)
If you want to test the frequency range/analytical capability of your loudspeakers: Try also the 24-bit CD of Spyro Gyra - The Collection (10 years after). Make your volume around -10db (quite loud) dito masusubukan kung kayang i-produced ng speakers ninyo iyong lahat ng instruments na ginamit ng Spyro Gyra during the recording. Kase some other known brands ay nagiging muddy at hindi nito ma-define ng maayos iyong mga instruments. Maganda pakinggan ito kase very detailed ang recording and it's Jazz.
Or check these websites for your reference cds:
www.store.acousticsounds.com
www.testscd.com
www.referencerecordings.com
Goodluck...(The Practical Audiophile)
-
... i define nyo muna ang ibig sabihin ng Analytical :)
mathematician? ???
;D ;D ;D
-
... maganda siguro kung i define nyo muna ang ibig sabihin ng Analytical :)
Ok. Since I started this thread, let me clarify what I meant by ‘analytical’.
By ‘analytical’, I mean that the speaker tends to reproduce recorded music
like it was being ‘analyzed’ or ‘scrutinized’ under a microscope.
Just imagine listening to music with a sort of an ‘audio microscope’
placed on each of your ears. You are expected to hear every 'nuance'
or 'detail' in the music played, no matter how small. Because of this,
‘analytical’ can also mean ‘hyperdetailed’ although 'hyperdetailed' does
not necessarily mean 'analytical'.
Analytical speakers can be both good and bad. Good in that,
if the recording is high quality, it will let you hear every bit of good detail
or nuance there is, no matter how small or subtle.
They can be bad in that, they can show you not only the
‘good’ details of the recording, but the ‘bad’ details as well,
like a faint ‘hiss’ in the recording or a ‘faint’ sound of
a vehicle passing near the recording studio.
Taken to the extreme, analytical speakers can reveal the ‘grain’
or ‘texture’ of a recording making them sound what they really are:
just a recording (not a live musical event). The key word here
is speakers that seem to 'magnify' or 'analyze' under a microscope
the recorded material being played back. That is why these speakers
are called 'analytical' speakers. Nothing to do with 'Pythagoras' or
any analytical 'mathematician' here... ;D hehehe!
- Kevlar
-
IF a speaker can reveal all the details of a recording, then it's the ideal speaker. And you have an ideal high fidelity audio path. That's essentially what high fidelity is about - revealing how the music sounded as it was recorded into whatever medium you are using. I don't see how it can be bad. That's what revealing systems are supposed to do - reveal the recording in all its glory or ugliness. And that's the objective of Hi-Fi. Revealng systems are what most professional music critics and reviewers use to evaluate a recorded material. If it sounds glorious, then the critic is all praises for the recording effort. If it's tonally unbalanced, grainy, etc, then you know the recording is not up to par and not worth getting. Simple. No other variables along the audio path to cloud your judgement. ;D
-
IF a speaker can reveal all the details of a recording, then it's the IDEAL speaker. And you have an IDEAL high fidelity audio path. ...
OK...
... can we now go back to reality? ;D ;D ;D
-
Kevlar,
Thank you for your definition. Now i understand the direction of the discussion.
Sa akin kasi, analytical means detailed but the sound does not draw you into the music. Cold ang dating. ALthough pwede maging detailed ang speakers pero kung yung details are woven into a coherent whole and draws you into the music, then musical yung speakers, not analytical :):):)
Godspeed :)
-
That's essentially what high fidelity is about - revealing how the music sounded as it was recorded
into whatever medium you are using. I don't see how it can be bad. ;D
This is where we completely disagree. ;D
High fidelity is about 'reliving' and 're-experiencing' the live performance. It goes beyond the recording and the
inherent limitations of the recording. The recording engineers and the artists surely want the best for you.
They want you to enjoy their work of art. They don't want you to curse them for being tone deaf.
They don't want you blaming them for destroying a beautiful musical composition through 'bad recording'.
Why then do many pop/rock records sound bright, boomy and grainy when played back in high-end 'flat',
'revealing' speaker systems? I don't think the recording engineers are tone deaf. For all you know,
they were probably using 'Bose' speakers as a final monitoring device because they thought that their
pop/rock records ought to sound good in the mass market where 'Bose' is the main speaker of choice.
As a result, they probably had to increase the bass and treble of the recording because 'Bose' has
limited bass and treble extension.
When you play back the recording in your relatively 'flatter' speaker system, you get excessive treble and bass.
In this case, you are hearing exactly how it was recorded... bad! But is this the intention of the artists and the
recording engineers? Is this the goal of high-fidelity? I don't think so. It is for this reason why I believe that
limiting your 'happiness' ;D to how bad a musical event was recorded is a rather 'myopic' view of high-fidelity.
I think you should do whatever you can to adjust the playback qualities of the recording through tone controls
or better yet, speaker design. The ultimate 'high-fidelity' goal is to make you 'relive' the experience, not 'relive'
the bad recording. In this case, the choice of speakers and the way you set them up in your listening
environment is paramount.
Whatever your speaker characteristics, 'flat' response, 'euphonic', detailed, analytical, etc., you should adjust
them to maximize playback quality. If you don't, you are going to miss at least 50% of the most beautiful music
the world has created (mainstream pop/rock).
- Kevlar
-
We definitely will never see eye to eye here, or ear to ear, because we have a different notion of what playback High Fidelity is. Playback Hi-Fi definition is really simple. Faithfulness or fidelity to the recording. Nothing more nothing less. If you want to colour it to your liking, go ahead if that's what gives you nirvana. But I wouldn't call it High Fidelity. I;d call it Euphonic. Because that's what it is - being pleasant to the ears.
-
We definitely will never see eye to eye here, or ear to ear, because we have a different notion of what playback High Fidelity is. Playback Hi-Fi definition is really simple. Faithfulness or fidelity to the recording. Nothing more nothing less. If you want to colour it to your liking, go ahead if that's what gives you nirvana. But I wouldn't call it High Fidelity. I;d call it Euphonic. Because that's what it is - being pleasant to the ears.
I agree. What goes in, goes out. Walang patsamba-tsamba ;D
-
We definitely will never see eye to eye here, or ear to ear, because we have a different notion of what playback High Fidelity is. Playback Hi-Fi definition is really simple. Faithfulness or fidelity to the recording. Nothing more nothing less. If you want to colour it to your liking, go ahead if that's what gives you nirvana. But I wouldn't call it High Fidelity. I;d call it Euphonic. Because that's what it is - being pleasant to the ears.
This is 'somehow' correct! ;)
However, Kevlar is also partly correct! :o
Adjusting tone controls (or even employment of equalizers for that matter), can be either colouring or compensating. You compensate for the defficiency. Amps and some audio inputs to amps (e.g. the phono RIAA eq ckt) have this, and it can either colour or compensate. Varied CD op-amps can either colour or compensate.
Of course, if excessively used to suit your taste - it maybe termed already as colouring the sound to your liking.
However, we just tend to debate on original recording - but neither of us was in the recording studio to substantiate how the orig sound sounded like! :P
So the next question is, how was the orig material sounded like? With your varied amp implementation and the corresponding compromises your speaker brought into the synergy (para sa iba, pati cable na! ;D) - I just dont know whether somebody (avphile1 or kevlar ;D ;D ;D) can really define the line between colouration and faithful reproduction (if nobody knows what the orig recording sounded like in the first place - or unless you solemnly believe ;D your amp did not introduce colouration of its own). Do we now say, since your signal passed thru coloured amps (cable?) and speakers, then what we listen to is basically euphonics and not fidelity? ???
Nasaan ba 'ang tanging daan'! Ano ba mga koya? (mali pala, 'dating daan pala' ;D)
-
aHobbit,
Let me explain further... ;D
If your system is flat/accurate/zero distortion yet cannot
reproduce music in a manner that is enjoyable, what is the point?
It still is not anywhere close to 'hi-fi' because ultimately, 'hi-fi' is
fidelity to the live performance, not just the recording.
A live performance is supposed to be pleasing to the ears,
so if it is not pleasing in your 'accurate' set up, it isn't anywhere
closer to hi-fi than a budget system which can reproduce
the recording better (with less harshness).
- Kevlar
-
Not all live performances are pleasing to the ear. And Hi-Fi need not be pleasing or euphonic or musical. But it can be.
-
Ah basta... i know someone who owns a roth howling to Patricia Barber's songs! ;D
-
aHobbit,
Let me explain further... ;D
If your system is flat/accurate/zero distortion yet cannot
reproduce music in a manner that is enjoyable, what is the point?
It still is not anywhere close to 'hi-fi' because ultimately, 'hi-fi' is
fidelity to the live performance, not just the recording.
A live performance is supposed to be pleasing to the ears,
so if it is not pleasing in your 'accurate' set up, it isn't anywhere
closer to hi-fi than a budget system which can reproduce
the recording better (with less harshness).
- Kevlar
Hi kevlar
- parang di ko pa rin gets! ;D
But I can voice where you are getting at.
In my kabaliwan, how I do listening?
Since I do not know what the orig music sounded like, and since I do not solemnly believe, my amp and speakers are perfect (also solemnly believe none, even the most unaffordable amp/speakers on earth, are perfect!!! ;D ;D ;D) - also include your cables, IC, room acoustics, fak. CDs, copied MP3s, molded tapes, scratched LPs, aging ears ... and wife if you want . . .
then I conclude that the best way for me to enjoy my music is to tailor fit (approximate) the music/sound based on the ideal sound I concocted in my head - and not to have a mygrain speculating how the original recording really sounded like!!! ;D ;D ;D
Pasko (bonus) na po ... benta na kayo mura gears so we can buy cheap!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
So the next question is, how was the orig material sounded like? With your varied amp implementation and the corresponding compromises your speaker brought into the synergy (para sa iba, pati cable na! ;D) - I just dont know whether somebody (avphile1 or kevlar ;D ;D ;D) can really define the line between colouration and faithful reproduction (if nobody knows what the orig recording sounded like in the first place - or unless you solemnly believe ;D your amp did not introduce colouration of its own). Do we now say, since your signal passed thru coloured amps (cable?) and speakers, then what we listen to is basically euphonics and not fidelity? ???
Nasaan ba 'ang tanging daan'! Ano ba mga koya? (mali pala, 'dating daan pala' ;D)
Audiophiles and audio enthusiasts at home will never know how the real live studio performance sounded as it was being recorded. In the first place, capturing the actual performance is, admittedly, a best case scenario with even the most sophisticated recording equipment. And with most studio recordings, after-session dubs and overdubs on multitrack tapes gurantee that what you get is not even remotely close to the real performance, but rather, how the record MIX was electronically made from those overdubs by the recording engineer on the record console monitored on studio-grade or monitor-grade speakers. For most records, the reality of a one-time live studio performance does not exist. This is almost always true with Synthesizer, Pop and Disco mixes.
The objective of a recording is to capture the performance as faithfully as possible. To do this involves the best way the recording engineer knows how using the recording studio's equipment and his innovative or conventional use of microphone placements as well as the philosophies he will appliy in capturing the moment. The final product is often subject to the critical assessment by the artists or arrangers involved. Quincy Jones, Rod Stewart, Sting, and many artists would always review the take and dictate re-takes to get to the sound they want. Different record labels and different record engineers will definitely capture the same performance differently. So even here, the subjective preferrences of the record studio, the artists and the engineers come into play. What is finally stamped on the master is a collaborative effort which the artist and the record eingeer heard on the monitor speakers. NOT what was heard inside the recording booth that only the artists heard on their headsets.
It's important to disabuse our minds that a home playback can sound like the real thing. Sorry folks, you're limited to the recorded medium. With even the best recording equipment and best recordng engineers, recorded sound is not even 50% close to the real thing. Some experts who have compared a live piano sound with its recording would even go so far to say it's only 20%. I may disagree with that. I have to admit that in some single instrument recordings, it is close. And can fool anyone to think it is the real thing. But recording an esemble gets to be more complex and less faithful. So it is correct to even say that between a recording and a live performance from where the recording was made, you can be miles apart.
A recording is just a REPLICA. And we all know a replica is never the real thing. If you want to hear how real musical instruments sound, go to an unamplified performance at the CCP. Not those live pop concerts where they use electronically amplfied voice, guitars, synthesizers and drums on large professional JBL speakers. That would be no different from home playback but on a larger scale. ;D
True, a replica can be very close to the real thing in details. That's the objective of recording fidelity. It aims to capture the details of the musical performance AS CLOSE to the reality as possible. The "detail" consists of the insturmental nuances as well as the air and space around the performance. But it's still a REPLICA; just a fraction of the real thing; never the real thing. The attempt can be successfull or flawed in varying degrees. That is why in many professional AV magz, you have records reviewed as having excellent sonics and records reviewed as being mediocre or not worth getting.
Add to this is the fact that stereophonic recording can only capture so much. Stereophonic mixes from multi-track multichannel recordings can even sound artificial. The first forays into high fidelity recording wanted multichannel capabilities to capture the REAL sense of musical presence in theater halls, but unfortunately, commercially producing them into a medium that was viable for producers and affordable to the masses constrained the effort to the stereo format. Stereo made it possible for the home market to appreciate a semblance of airiness and spaceousness in a recording. But audiophiles and musical experts agree, it's still a far cry from the real experience of listening to live accoustic instruments in a hall or studio.
So what do we have to start with for home playback? A REPLICA. A great REPLICA from some labels. Or a lousy REPLICA from others.
To say that home playback fidelity aims to recreate real live sound at home is an illusion. It's an impossibility long acknowledged by the audiophile community as a technically unattainable objective in home playback gears. Home playback fidelity aims to reproduce a REPLICA as faithfully as possible. Nothing more. Record engineers, artists and labels have gone to greath lengths to create a REPLICA that is as close to the real musical sound, capturing the air and space as much as possible There is such a thing as putting our faith on the recording engineers and the labels who made the REPLICA.. And that is why seasoned audiophiles patronize mostly record labels that have proven to be consistently producing goergeous REPLICAs of the music genre of their choice. Anything less than faithfully reproducing these REPLICAs would give so much injustice to the record and render its reproduction at home a failure variously resulting from any form of coloration. Faithfully reproducing the REPLICA also will reveal if the REPLICA is indeed good or bad. An ideal system with transparent, accurate and neutral players, amps, speakers and room accoustics should be able to reproduce the REPLICA in all its GLORY or ugliness. The former you keep, the latter you throw out. SImple. It's the only way to move the variables out in any playback system leaving the recorded medium as the only variable.
But in the real world, such a transparent, neutral and accurate set-up is also difficult if not impossible to achieve. All amps and speakers and room accoustics add a degree of sonic signature or timbre that will never really give justice to any recorded musical information. But that doesn't furstrate the objective of hi-fi home playback. If at all, the impetus of upgrading to better more transparent systems is predicated precisely by the quest to achieve this objective. Regardless of your budget, the objective of home playback high fidelity remains the same - reproducing the recording as faithfully as possible within your means. If you do that successfully, there's a much greater chance that the luscsiouness and gorgeousness of a well-made recording will shine through more realistically than from a coloured system. You also can start identifying good recording labels from not-so-good ones with more confidence than with a colored system where you would not know which of your amp, speaker or player is givng you coloration that's obscuring the record from shinning through. And finally, a well made recording faithfully reproduced stands a better chance of giving you goose bumps and real-life sensation on a proper set-up as it will sound closely to the kind of sound the artists heard and approved to be finalized on the masters. Home audio enthusiasts may not hear real life instruments everytime. But I have every reason to believe musicians and recording artists do know how real instruments sound like and when they finalize a recording take to their liking, you can rest assured the sound closely resembles what they hear regularly.
Having said that, as an audiophile, I strongly suggest you attend live unamplified concerts as often as possible. Or be present in recording studios when recordings are done, so you'd have better appreciation of real musical sounds. If, after that, you believe that altering the sound of your system would bring the sound closer to what you hear in real performance, then by all means alter the sound using whatever sound shaping device you have, tone controls or equalizers. If boosting the highs and the bass makes the sound more realistic to you , then by all means do so. You are not alone here. A lot of people like the sound when the equalizer sliders are on a V or U shape formation. Like I said, it's your ears and your bias that will determine your satisfaction with your sound system. But let us have one thing clear that I will repeat ad nauseum. High Fidelity has its simple objective and has nothing to do with what's pleasant to the ears or giving you emotional highs when listening. These are personal reactions. Different people would have different thresholds of what's aurally pleasant and what gives them emotional highs. I can tell you that there are also people who get emotional highs and goose bumps listenng to systems with no tone controls or equalizers. I happen to be one of those. High Fidelity defines a standard - a straighforward impersonal faithfulness to the recording that is a measurable standard against which various set-ups can be assessed objectively. It is prudent enough not to even aim for faithfulness to a live performance. Because it knows that that can never happen. You are limited by the recorded medum, among other things in your system. Being faithfull to the recording already demands a lot from your system. Often with great effort and expense. That's all it asks. ;D
-
Since I do not know what the orig music sounded like, and since I do not solemnly believe, my amp and speakers are perfect (also solemnly believe none, even the most unaffordable amp/speakers on earth, are perfect!!! ;D ;D ;D) - also include your cables, IC, room acoustics, fak. CDs, copied MP3s, molded tapes, scratched LPs, aging ears ... and wife if you want . . .
then I conclude that the best way for me to enjoy my music is to tailor fit (approximate) the music/sound based on the ideal sound I concocted in my head - and not to have a mygrain speculating how the original recording really sounded like!!! ;D ;D ;D
Pasko (bonus) na po ... benta na kayo mura gears so we can buy cheap!!! ;D ;D ;D
One doesn't have to know how the original performance sounded. There's no way to find out even if you dug up the original master reels, digital or analog. In the first place, most recording methods ensure you will never know how the performance sounded as explained in my previous post. Recording methods have a way of obscuring them. So you're really left with just a recorded REPLICA to begin with at home.
So, if based on your recollection on what you believe sounds more realistic to you, you alter the sound of the record using sound shaping devices, then that's your call. I have gone to great lengths to present what playback High Fidelity is as defined and accepted in the industry. How you operate your system is up to you.
-
Not all live performances are pleasing to the ear. And Hi-Fi need not be pleasing or euphonic or musical. But it can be.
True. I've been to the Folk Arts Theater for some live concerts in the past and left promptly as the accoustics was plainly aweful. I also heard that the recent concert of Andrea Bocelli here was plagued with lousy accoustics so his performance was less than memorable.
Playback High Fidelity is a measurable objective - being faithful to the recorded material. It's that simple. And yes, it can be pleasing or euphonic or not. But that's where personal biases enter the picture. Or due to a good or bad recording. But to find that out, you need a revealing system - one that eschews High Fidelity rather than euphony.
-
"Fidelity means faithfulness or adherence to the truth. High fidelity sound offers maximum truth or faithfulness to the original recording. We hope that the recording is true to the original event but, if it is not, a high fidelity playback system won’t romanticize it with complementary colorations. This point is philosophically critical. A high fidelity audio system should not attempt to make a recording sound better by altering the recorded signal in any way."
fr:
http://www.audioperfectionist.com/
-
Mawalang galang na po av_phile1,
May itatanong lang po ako. Paano mo alam kung ano ang dapat na tunog ng REPLICA?
Ok, pagpalagay na natin na kasama mo si Quiny Jones sa recording hanngang sa stamping ng mga REPLICA. Basically, alam mo ang tunog ng REPLICA. Tinono mo system mo para makuha ang tamang tunog. You were successful at exacto ang tunog. Paano na pag nagsalang ka ng ibang CD or REPLICA sa system mo na ni record or inistamp sa ibang bansa or studio? Faithful pa kaya ang system mo dito sa bagong REPLICA?
Isa pa po. Let's say ikaw at si Quincy Jones ay pumunta sa bahay mo para i-set up ang system mo para ang tunog ng REPLICA will be as faithful as it was stamped. Do you think pareho kayo ng interpretation ng sound? Do you think you will end up with the same set-up? Can you really be purely objective with sound?
Thank you :)
-
Mawalang galang na po av_phile1,
May itatanong lang po ako. Paano mo alam kung ano ang dapat na tunog ng REPLICA?
Ewan ko, tanungin mo si Quincy Jones, or mga recording artsts. Sila ang nag-Ok ma-release yung kanilang recorded replica. Kung anong gusto nilang tunog, yun ang lalabas sa replica ng kanilang performance.
Ok, pagpalagay na natin na kasama mo si Quiny Jones sa recording hanngang sa stamping ng mga REPLICA. Basically, alam mo ang tunog ng REPLICA. Tinono mo system mo para makuha ang tamang tunog. You were successful at exacto ang tunog. Paano na pag nagsalang ka ng ibang CD or REPLICA sa system mo na ni record or inistamp sa ibang bansa or studio? Faithful pa kaya ang system mo dito sa bagong REPLICA?
In the first place, hindi ko itotono and system ko para lang sa isa or dalawang CD. I just leave it as it is. Wala namang tone controls and system ko. Dahil sa alam kong ginawa ng mga record studios and record engineers ang kanilang best effort to capture a performance the best they can, lalo na kung ito ay galing sa magagaling na record labels like Chesky, Telarc, Linn, Mobile Fidelity, etc, alam kong lalabas and tunog as recorded on a home playback system na walang dagdag/ bawas sa tunog. Basta flat response, low distortion, no phase misalignment, etc., in short transparent, neutral and accurate, kung ano ang tunog ng pagka-record, yun ang lalabas. Period. Maaring hindi perfect, but that's the objective.
Isa pa po. Let's say ikaw at si Quincy Jones ay pumunta sa bahay mo para i-set up ang system mo para ang tunog ng REPLICA will be as faithful as it was stamped. Do you think pareho kayo ng interpretation ng sound? Do you think you will end up with the same set-up? Can you really be purely objective with sound?
High Fidleity Recording is a SEPARATE issue from High Fidelity Playback. When Quincy Jones creates his replica for his music performance, it ends there. That's his preferrence stamped on that replica. If the record engineer dd a good job, then I can expect his replica to sound as it was recorded on any high fidelity playback system properly set up. Ngayon, whether or not gusto ko yung kanyang tunog sa kanyang replica, that's another thing. That's where subjective taste enters or why there's such a thing as a bad recording and a good one form a personal bias angle.
And yes, you can be objective with sound. That's what they do with measuring instruments, displaying the attributes of sound waves. Sound is just another observable phenomenon subject to the immutable laws of physics. But appreciating the music and injecting your preferrence for how the the music sounds is another thing, That's the subjective part.
Thank you :)
Your're welcome
-
I agree with av_phile1, coz they are meant to sound the same as they're recorded, "NO COLORATION". In regards of era syempre kung ano best technology that has been available in that circa (e.g. 70's hi-fi) yun ang lalabas, dahil kung imodify na like remasterring or digitally re-mastered eh iba na yun, pero syempre if that's the case ginagawa lang yun ng mga re-recording sound engineers to ensure na satisfied ang listeners at mailabas ang best possible recreation of a typical recording without the "noise" one sample nito is Elvis, Ray Charles, or even Qunicy Jones, try hearing yun orig na LP's ng mga artist na ito at i-compare mo sa SACD version nila compare. You will hear the differennce.;)
-
Sir av_phile1,
Paki explain naman po kung paano ko ma-aachieve yung transparent, neutral and accurate system na dinescribe nyo below. Ano lang ba po yun, yung walang tone control? Ito ba po yung inexplain nyo na walang dagdag o bawas para truthful sa recording? Ito ba po yung sinasabi nyo na objective ng Hi Fidelity Playback?
In the first place, hindi ko itotono and system ko para lang sa isa or dalawang CD. I just leave it as it is. Wala namang tone controls and system ko. Dahil sa alam kong ginawa ng mga record studios and record engineers ang kanilang best effort to capture a performance the best they can, lalo na kung ito ay galing sa magagaling na record labels like Chesky, Telarc, Linn, Mobile Fidelity, etc, alam kong lalabas and tunog as recorded on a home playback system na walang dagdag/ bawas sa tunog. Basta flat response, low distortion, no phase misalignment, etc., in short transparent, neutral and accurate, kung ano ang tunog ng pagka-record, yun ang lalabas. Period. Maaring hindi perfect, but that's the objective.
-
Sir av_phile1,
Paki explain naman po kung paano ko ma-aachieve yung transparent, neutral and accurate system na dinescribe nyo below. Ano lang ba po yun, yung walang tone control? Ito ba po yung inexplain nyo na walang dagdag o bawas para truthful sa recording? Ito ba po yung sinasabi nyo na objective ng Hi Fidelity Playback?
Not Sir AV, but that's the idea. Assuming, of course, the equipment is capable of Hi-Fi playback (low distortion, flat frequency response).
-
Hi kevlar,
Since I do not know what the orig music sounded like, and since I do not solemnly believe, my amp and speakers are perfect (also solemnly believe none, even the most unaffordable amp/speakers on earth, are perfect!!! ;D ;D ;D) - also include your cables, IC, room acoustics, fak. CDs, copied MP3s, molded tapes, scratched LPs, aging ears ... and wife if you want . . .
then I conclude that the best way for me to enjoy my music is to tailor fit (approximate) the music/sound based on the ideal sound I concocted in my head - and not to have a migrain speculating how the original recording really sounded like!!! ;D ;D ;D
aHobbit,
Excellent! You got my point! ;D
That is essentially what I'm driving at. There are no absolutes in 'hi-fi'.
Everything is relative and everything is ultimately judged as being
closer to 'hi-fi' or not by your own ears.
Everything has to be customized to your own ears so that it will be
perceived as more 'hi-fi' sound to you because it is all that matters to you.
It is all that matters to your enjoyment of music.
What use is an accurate playback if your ears keep on telling you it is not 'hi-fi'?
It would be better to use tone shaping devices so your ears will tell you, now that
is a sound closer to 'hi-fi'! That is all that matters really.
Given that more than 50% of music is pop/rock and that these records benefit
from some form of 'tone shaping' to make them sound a lot closer
to 'hi-fi' according to what your ears tell you, then by all means do it!
Forget about 'accurate playback or playback fidelity'. If your ears just doesn't tell
you the music doesn't sound right, then why not alter the sound to suit you?
Again, EVERYTHING, 'hi-fi' included , is ultimately RELATIVE to you.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE HI-FI or THE ONE TRUE SOUND.
By letting your own ears make the final decision, then this will ensure that you
are getting the hi-fi sound that matter most to you--- not the hi-fi sound dictated
by mere 'playback fidelity'.
"Fidelity means faithfulness or adherence to the truth."
I agree 100%. But what is the 'truth' about sound reproduction?
Is it merely accurate speakers, zero distortion, flat response and playback fidelity?
No, no, no! The truth is ULTIMATELY RELATIVE to your own ears.
Everything else does not matter. If your ears tell you the guitar sounds a lot
like the real thing if I adjust this or that, then go ahead! You are getting closer
to the real thing than merely leaving the record unaltered during playback
because that is what is in the recording. Your personal experience with the sound
of live voices/instruments is all that matters. It is what is ULTIMATELY hi-fi to you.
I do not discount the importance of objective measurements, accurate speakers
and accurate playback, but don't let it rule you and ultimately limit your experience.
If your ears really tell you that you can get better sound with this or that adjustment,
then by all means do it! You are getting closer to hi-fi according to your ears
and it is all that matters.
"A high fidelity audio system should not attempt to make a recording sound better
by altering the recorded signal in any way."
Wrong. If you are maybe doing some forensic investigation of the 'Gloriagate' tapes, yes.
But music listening? No way! Why torture yourself with accurate playback of
pop/rock recordings if they really sound harsh? Why not make them sound better?
Why limit your music selection to 'audiophile' labels because they are the only ones
that sound good in your system? You are enjoying less music simply because you
want to acheive the 'one true sound.'
I should reiterate again that 'the one true sound' is RELATIVE to you. There are no
absolutes in 'hi-fi'. Everything is ultimately judged by you, by your own ears.
If your ears just doesn't tell you the music doesn't sound right, then why not alter the
sound to suit you? If altering the recording makes the instruments sound a lot
closer to what your ears tell you is the real thing, then why not do it?
We should remember that 'hi-fi' is ultimately about ourselves and our preferences.
Objective measurements are good and should be used to guide us, but they should
not be the end of it all. After all, 'hi-fi' is not a perfect science. It is still an art and
a hobby. And as in all hobbies, the only thing that matters is you and your enjoyment.
- Kevlar
-
Sir av_phile1,
Paki explain naman po kung paano ko ma-aachieve yung transparent, neutral and accurate system na dinescribe nyo below. Ano lang ba po yun, yung walang tone control? Ito ba po yung inexplain nyo na walang dagdag o bawas para truthful sa recording? Ito ba po yung sinasabi nyo na objective ng Hi Fidelity Playback?
That's the objective of playback High Fidelity. Neutrality, Transparency and Accuracy. In short, the Hi-Fi gears and your room accoustics should allow the recorded information to be REVEALED, reaching your ears with the least possible coloration or "dagdag-bawas" in any part of the captured audio information. From a technical point, that means the flattest frequency curve, least harmonic and non-harmonic distortion and time/phase shifts (neutrality) so as not to add anything to or subtract from the original signals, the widest bandwidth and channel integrity or separation (transaparency) to permit all the captured frequencies to pass through unhampered and unstrained the way they were recorded, and the lowest noise floors, highest signal to noise ratios and maximum damping factor (accuracy) to minimize modulation of signals to bring out all the details as captured.
-
aHobbit,
Excellent! You got my point! ;D
That is essentially what I'm driving at. There are no absolutes in 'hi-fi'.
Everything is relative and everything is ultimately judged as being
closer to 'hi-fi' or not by your own ears.
Everything has to be customized to your own ears so that it will be
perceived as more 'hi-fi' sound to you because it is all that matters to you.
It is all that matters to your enjoyment of music.
What use is an accurate playback if your ears keep on telling you it is not 'hi-fi'?
It would be better to use tone shaping devices so your ears will tell you, now that
is a sound closer to 'hi-fi'! That is all that matters really.
Given that more than 50% of music is pop/rock and that these records benefit
from some form of 'tone shaping' to make them sound a lot closer
to 'hi-fi' according to what your ears tell you, then by all means do it!
Forget about 'accurate playback or playback fidelity'. If your ears just doesn't tell
you the music doesn't sound right, then why not alter the sound to suit you?
Again, EVERYTHING, 'hi-fi' included , is ultimately RELATIVE to you.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE HI-FI or THE ONE TRUE SOUND.
By letting your own ears make the final decision, then this will ensure that you
are getting the hi-fi sound that matter most to you--- not the hi-fi sound dictated
by mere 'playback fidelity'.
"Fidelity means faithfulness or adherence to the truth."
I agree 100%. But what is the 'truth' about sound reproduction?
Is it merely accurate speakers, zero distortion, flat response and playback fidelity?
No, no, no! The truth is ULTIMATELY RELATIVE to your own ears.
Everything else does not matter. If your ears tell you the guitar sounds a lot
like the real thing if I adjust this or that, then go ahead! You are getting closer
to the real thing than merely leaving the record unaltered during playback
because that is what is in the recording. Your personal experience with the sound
of live voices/instruments is all that matters. It is what is ULTIMATELY hi-fi to you.
I do not discount the importance of objective measurements, accurate speakers
and accurate playback, but don't let it rule you and ultimately limit your experience.
If your ears really tell you that you can get better sound with this or that adjustment,
then by all means do it! You are getting closer to hi-fi according to your ears
and it is all that matters.
"A high fidelity audio system should not attempt to make a recording sound better
by altering the recorded signal in any way."
Wrong. If you are maybe doing some forensic investigation of the 'Gloriagate' tapes, yes.
But music listening? No way! Why torture yourself with accurate playback of
pop/rock recordings if they really sound harsh? Why not make them sound better?
Why limit your music selection to 'audiophile' labels because they are the only ones
that sound good in your system? You are enjoying less music simply because you
want to acheive the 'one true sound.'
I should reiterate again that 'the one true sound' is RELATIVE to you. There are no
absolutes in 'hi-fi'. Everything is ultimately judged by you, by your own ears.
If your ears just doesn't tell you the music doesn't sound right, then why not alter the
sound to suit you? If altering the recording makes the instruments sound a lot
closer to what your ears tell you is the real thing, then why not do it?
We should remember that 'hi-fi' is ultimately about ourselves and our preferences.
Objective measurements are good and should be used to guide us, but they should
not be the end of it all. After all, 'hi-fi' is not a perfect science. It is still an art and
a hobby. And as in all hobbies, the only thing that matters is you and your enjoyment.
- Kevlar
I have the impression you are confusing the definition of playback High Fidelity with the personal way you prefer to listen to your music and your gears. There's nothing relative about the Hi-Fi standard or its definition. A standard is absolute unless modified by collegial consensus. How you listen to your music and how you like your music to sound like based on your preferrence is the one relative to you and good only for you, no one else.
I have no problem with tone-shaping devices. Used prudently, judiciously and minimally, they can be used to compensate for flawed room accoustics or speaker responses. But I'd use them as a last resort. If you knew what these devices do to a signal, I wonder if you'd ever have the incentive to use them.
-
Sir av_phile1,
Paano po nyo magagawa itong Neutrality, Transparency and Accuracy? How do you achieve no coloration? Kailangan ko ba ng mga mike, spectrum analyzer to achieve this? How did you do this in your system?
That's the objective of playback High Fidelity. . In short, the Hi-Fi gears and your room accoustics should allow the recorded information to be REVEALED, reaching your ears with the least possible coloration or "dagdag-bawas" in any part of the captured audio information. From a technical point, that means the flattest frequency curve, least harmonic and non-harmonic distortion and time/phase shifts (neutrality) so as not to add anything to or subtract from the original signals, the widest bandwidth and channel integrity or separation (transaparency) to permit all the captured frequencies to pass through unhampered and unstrained the way they were recorded, and the lowest noise floors, highest signal to noise ratios and maximum damping factor (accuracy) to minimize modulation of signals to bring out all the details as captured.
-
Sir av_phile1,
Paano po nyo magagawa itong Neutrality, Transparency and Accuracy? How do you achieve no coloration? Kailangan ko ba ng mga mike, spectrum analyzer to achieve this? How did you do this in your system?
You don't. There's only so much you can if your current system is not. Unless you are a techie adept at modifying. Just get the gears with the best possible specs you consider to be within the confines of neutrality, transparency and accuracy you can afford. The simplest separates are often the best in this department. No tone controls. No video switchng circuits, fewest audio switches along the audio path, least displays, etc.
Set-up your room with the least possible reverb and room mode activation using SPL meter and a test CD. Having no accoustic room coloration is ideal and you can get that when you engineer your listening room from the ground up to be a really neutral room. OTH, you just have to treat it the best way you know while maintaining its liveability.
I can suspect where you're heading. Just to let you know, I do not claim to have a neutral, transparent and accurate system. That's my objective. But if my simple set-up can give me goose bumps and emotional highs listening to great records, without the aid of any tone shaping devices, I believe I have one foot on one. And because I can easily identify a good recording from a lousy one, I am one step closer to one. High Fidelity is both an objective and journey. Just when you think you're there, you realize there's still an open road ahead. The journey is basically what underpines this hobby. And you shouldn't lose sight of the objective. You may not achieve it, but when you know what you want, every pitstop gets you closer to it. I'm in one of those early stops. And at this time, I see no further need to continue with the journey until I find something better.
-
Quincy Jones, Rod Stewart, Sting, and many artists would always review the take and dictate re-takes to get to the sound they want.
Isn’t this something. These artists use their ears and dictate retakes because they do not want how they sound! How can it be? Because they have on their heads how they should sound like – and this is on the basis of the amp/speaker they are using during reviews!
… This point is philosophically critical…
… A high fidelity audio system should not attempt to make a recording sound better by altering the recorded signal in any way."[/i]
fr:
http://www.audioperfectionist.com/
High fidelity is a scientific term in audio technology – and as usual in scientific findings, ideal condition applies.
And when technology is used in practical life, you now integrate physical limitations.
Thus, an ideal amp should not alter the sound. And we don’t have ideal amp, so employ compensations. From the input of the amp, compensation exists because the path (amp stages) are not ideal. The pre-amp input has compensation, your tone control is supposedly compensating control within the reach of the user of the amp. Up to the output, you still employ compensation – the cross-overs and the matching of drivers also blended together for a compensated sound. All of these things is for the realization of an approximated ideal ‘fidelity’ you formed in your head (in your absence during recording sessions).
Thus, the definition above is true to itself – merely a PHILOSOPHICAL (IDEAL) thing, not at all usable by us earthlings. If a recording can be altered by the studio, to comply to what he has in his head should be ‘hi-fi’-ish sound – using his amp/speakers during review, what prevents you now to accomplish the same, using your amp/speaker in your listening area?
It is true, an amp should not, as a goal, alter the signal – so compensations inside the amps abound. But in the course of your physical limitation (the likes of your speakers, acoustics, etc etc), you also employ your mode of compensation – and what is your goal? To also achieve, what should be hi-fi in your head. This is more practical because you acknowledge that physical things around you will alter the sound and you are now in ‘altering’ mode to reconstruct the hi-fi.
Some audiophile have entertained in their heads that their sources, CDs, amp, cable, speakers, acoustics, ears are perfect – and that any alteration along the path of their ‘perfect’ gears are anti-HIFI – or simply euphonic. So they labour patiently to hear all/every recorded material as is! Good luck! ;D ;D ;D. may the force be with them.
How do you take an audiophile when he say his new CD player, or amp, or speaker is now sounds closer to the original? I simply thought he is in cloud9 and do not know what he is talking about! :P :P (was he there during the recording?)
O baka spaghetti na ito? ;D ;D ;D
hifi recording
hifi mastering
hifi system building
hifi system altering
naku fo! ;D ;D ;D
-
Isn’t this something. These artists use their ears and dictate retakes because they do not want how they sound! How can it be? Because they have on their heads how they should sound like – and this is on the basis of the amp/speaker they are using during reviews!
Precisely why I want to hear exactly what they put into those records. I want to hear what was in the head of a famous artist and his collaborative effort with a recording enigneering. Nothing added or subtracted. Like I said, the recording can be miles apart from the actual performance of that recording. So I don't enteratain any illusion I will ever hear the real thing in any playback system. That's never the objective of Hi-Fi. But I expect a gooHi Fi playback system to reproduce as faithflly as possible what is contained in that recording.
High fidelity is a scientific term in audio technology – and as usual in scientific findings, ideal condition applies.
And when technology is used in practical life, you now integrate physical limitations.
Really? ??? Everything has its limitations. Whether you use technology or not. I don't know about you, but I find the applications of technology a liberating thing in my everyday life.
Thus, an ideal amp should not alter the sound. And we don’t have ideal amp, so employ compensations. From the input of the amp, compensation exists because the path (amp stages) are not ideal. The pre-amp input has compensation, your tone control is supposedly compensating control within the reach of the user of the amp. Up to the output, you still employ compensation – the cross-overs and the matching of drivers also blended together for a compensated sound. All of these things is for the realization of an approximated ideal ‘fidelity’ you formed in your head (in your absence during recording sessions).
I am not interested in what goes on inside an amp. Not entirely. For an someone interest in high fidelity, the only things that matter is the diference, if any, between the input signal and the output signal. If the only difference between them is the amplitude of the current to adequately drive the speakers, that's just fine.
Thus, the definition above is true to itself – merely a PHILOSOPHICAL (IDEAL) thing, not at all usable by us earthlings. If a recording can be altered by the studio, to comply to what he has in his head should be ‘hi-fi’-ish sound – using his amp/speakers during review, what prevents you now to accomplish the same, using your amp/speaker in your listening area?
Nothing. As I said, you're free to alter the signal as you want. That's your listening preferrence. Call it whatever you want But it's not hi fi. Capiche?
It is true, an amp should not, as a goal, alter the signal – so compensations inside the amps abound. But in the course of your physical limitation (the likes of your speakers, acoustics, etc etc), you also employ your mode of compensation – and what is your goal? To also achieve, what should be hi-fi in your head. This is more practical because you acknowledge that physical things around you will alter the sound and you are now in ‘altering’ mode to reconstruct the hi-fi.
You will never get the real thing from any playback system. That's sheer illusion. The recording itself is miles apart form the performance. But why add to the alteration? A high fidelity system will reveal the sonics of a great recording in all its majesty the way it was intended to be heard by the artist and the label. I have no intentions of mutilating it with tone controls and equalizers.
Serous audiophiles have no illusion they're getting the real thing and they know reproducing the recorded information as faithfully as their gears and room allow them is the most that a good high fidelity system can do.
What hi-fi in the head? :o Hi fi does not reside in the head, it's a playback or recording standard. Let's not confuse the word hi-fi with personal notions of how music should sound. That's a personal assessment that resides in your head. Not Hi-Fi.
Some audiophile have entertained in their heads that their sources, CDs, amp, cable, speakers, acoustics, ears are perfect – and that any alteration along the path of their ‘perfect’ gears are anti-HIFI – or simply euphonic. So they labour patiently to hear all/every recorded material as is! Good luck! ;D ;D ;D. may the force be with them.
How do you take an audiophile when he say his new CD player, or amp, or speaker is now sounds closer to the original? I simply thought he is in cloud9 and do not know what he is talking about! :P :P (was he there during the recording?)
O baka spaghetti na ito? ;D ;D ;D
hifi recording
hifi mastering
hifi system building
hifi system altering
naku fo! ;D ;D ;D
Who says audiophiles have this notion that their gears are perfect? On the contrary, most audiophiles I know are consistently hypercritical and always find fault in their gears. And I don't know about peple who themselves spend time and effort altering the sound with their tone controls and equalizers, many audiophiles I know wouldn't as they're very happy with the way their system sounds. Without tone controls.
-
av_phile1,
Thank you for your response.
Actually, i am not heading to neutrality, transparency and accuracy (walang dagdag o bawas). Para sa akin kasi, this is not achievable. However flat the frequency response of your equipment or room is, the REPLICA played in your system is unikley to sound the same as the replica played in the recording studio. If so, then there is dagdag o bawas so to speak.
Since i don't think i can achieve accuracy, might as well just ENJOY THE MUSIC :)
-
It is plain this thread has become an arena between purists and alterists, if I can call them that. It's another classic debate that will never see the end of it . Much like between subjectivists and objectivists.
I have given the definition of High Fidelity as embraced by most seasoned audiophiles in the industry and purists. Hi fi is an objective. It's also a standard you can adopt. But like anything else, no one's forcing anyone to adopt these in their listening spree. I did adopt it. It actually makes my life a lot simpler.
Asking Hi Fi to sound like the real thing is a delusion. Wake up. No such animal. Hi Fi doesn't do that.. Home playback gears can only hope to be faithful to the original source recording. And that in itself is already a tall order few systems can accomplish satisfactorily. Let alone aspire to sound like the real thing.
But if you think you are closer to the real sounds by using tone controls, good for you. But think again.
Nothing that equalizers and tone controls can do will ever bring you there. The best you can do with these is compensate for room and speaker responses to give it a flat character. But I prefer addressing the room and speaker acoustics directly as they yield more lasting result. The worst you can do with these, and which is often the case, is introduce phase shifts and harmonic distortion products that only serve to muddle the original signals. Nothing's preventing you from using them. I certainly wouldn't even dream of preventing you from using them. In fact, there's a perverse satisfaction I get knowing you use them and I don't. ;D ;D So go ahead.
I have given you guys my reasons why I don't use them. I've read your reasons why you use them. We obviously woudn't buy into each other's argument. So let's just leave them be. I rest my case.
-
av_phile1,
Thank you for your response.
Actually, i am not heading to neutrality, transparency and accuracy (walang dagdag o bawas). Para sa akin kasi, this is not achievable. However flat the frequency response of your equipment or room is, the REPLICA played in your system is unikley to sound the same as the replica played in the recording studio. If so, then there is dagdag o bawas so to speak.
Since i don't think i can achieve accuracy, might as well just ENJOY THE MUSIC :)
I kinda like your attitude. Enjoying the music is what we want. And you can get there through the Hi-fi route or through the euphonic route. Your call.
-
If Hi-Fi is relative, then why do I see recommendations for B&W's, AE's, MA's, Mordaunt's, NAD, Rotel, Denon etc. Would it be acceptable to us if someone say Bose will be better than a Dynaudio? That a Sakura can be more musical than a Krell?
I don't think so.
PS
I think we're confusing Hi-Fi w/ being musical.
-
yan ang sarap d2 pdvd dami matutunan! ganda talaga hobby na 'to!
nag-umpisa sa alulong ng aso saan kaya matatapos?
meowwww :)
-
yan ang sarap d2 pdvd dami matutunan! ganda talaga hobby na 'to!
nag-umpisa sa alulong ng aso saan kaya matatapos?
meowwww :)
If we start w/ the "alulong" and ended up hearing a sweet meow, that's not Hi-Fi. But, it sure is musical ;)
-
Enjoying the music is what we want. And you can get there through the Hi-fi route or through the euphonic route. Your call.
crossroads? seem to come and go......
peace :)
-
… I want to hear what was in the head of a famous artist and his collaborative effort with a recording enigneering. Nothing added or subtracted…
So who is dreaming? ??? ;D ;D
Really? ??? Everything has its limitations. Whether you use technology or not. I don't know about you, but I find the applications of technology a liberating thing in my everyday life.
>:( ???
… For an someone interest in high fidelity, the only things that matter is the diference, if any, between the input signal and the output signal…
… and keeps on dreaming…. (as if audiophile, as serious as you are, did measure the difference!) :P ;D ;D ;D. You might be refering to the output of your amp, but it is not the one reaching your ears - it is the output of your speakers! ;D
Nothing. As I said, you're free to alter the signal as you want. That's your listening preferrence. Call it whatever you want But it's not hi fi. Capiche?
… and remains dreaming … ;D (as if his decision not to alter signal is not called his listening preference as well, solemnly believes his amp/speaker did not alter the signal – see above)
… A high fidelity system will reveal the sonics of a great recording in all its majesty the way it was intended to be heard by the artist and the label…
…and never stops dreaming… ;D ;D (as if the amp/speaker synergy in the studio is the same amp/speaker synergy in every home, as if all amp/speaker synergy combination result in the same performance)
Serous audiophiles have no illusion they're getting the real thing and they know reproducing the recorded information as faithfully as their gears and room allow them is the most that a good high fidelity system can do.
…uh oh… :o the tone control is part of the gears that will faithfully reproduce the sound!!! ;D ;D ;D
What hi-fi in the head? :o Hi fi does not reside in the head, it's a playback or recording standard. Let's not confuse the word hi-fi with personal notions of how music should sound. That's a personal assessment that resides in your head. Not Hi-Fi.
…hmmn… >:( I thought that it is your head that makes the notion that if you apply tone controls, it is not hi-fi anymore – but rather euphonic. ??? And tube lovers that choose different tubes because of its sonic signature ceases to be hi-fi enthusiasts but euphonic enthusiast… ??? ???
Who says audiophiles have this notion that their gears are perfect? On the contrary, most audiophiles I know are consistently hypercritical and always find fault in their gears. And I don't know about peple who themselves spend time and effort altering the sound with their tone controls and equalizers, many audiophiles I know wouldn't as they're very happy with the way their system sounds. Without tone controls.
…that’s always the problem with your ‘most’ audiophiles. They thought it is their gears which are always at fault – not the recording! ;D ;D ;D
Hay hiho!
Buti na lang pasko na! ;D ;D ;D
-
Obviously, some posters coiuldn't carry a decent argument. I shouldn't have wasted my time dignifying the post of a cranially destitute poster. For now, I'll refrain from stooping down to the creature's level.
-
If Hi-Fi is relative, then why do I see recommendations for B&W's, AE's, MA's, Mordaunt's, NAD, Rotel, Denon etc. Would it be acceptable to us if someone say Bose will be better than a Dynaudio? That a Sakura can be more musical than a Krell?
I don't think so.
PS
I think we're confusing Hi-Fi w/ being musical.
As usual, brands or cost has nothing to do with sonic performance… ;)
…Or better yet, go straight to the point… 8)
Can you give us readers when is a certain gear considered hi-fi and when it is not? ???
Did the hi-fi convention you maybe basing your hi-fi definition stated it should be +-0 dB from 20-20k Hz at 0%THD from 0-full power (ideal fidelity)? ??? On the speaker, at what freq peak/dip level before it is considered hi-fi? ??? ??? Did your mag reviews provide you freq resp curve for you to judge if it falls on your definition of hi-fi? ??? ??? ???
Or since when, the presence of tone controls in amp, made the amp not hi-fi anymore – or when you move those knobs, the amp ceases to reproduce hi-fi? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
So how faithful is faithful if it is not really faithful? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
So who is confusing what? :-\
-
Obviously, some posters coiuldn't carry a decent argument.
I shouldn't have wasted my time dignifying the post of a CRANIALLY DESTITUTE poster.
For now, I'll refrain from stooping down to the creature's level.
hmmn ... as if ...
... look up on the pedestal?
honorable escape! ;D
Sige na nga - Happy New Year na! :D :D :D
-
As usual, brands or cost has nothing to do with sonic performance… ;)
…Or better yet, go straight to the point… 8)
Can you give us readers when is a certain gear considered hi-fi and when it is not? ???
Did the hi-fi convention you maybe basing your hi-fi definition stated it should be +-0 dB from 20-20k Hz at 0%THD from 0-full power (ideal fidelity)? ??? On the speaker, at what freq peak/dip level before it is considered hi-fi? ??? ??? Did your mag reviews provide you freq resp curve for you to judge if it falls on your definition of hi-fi? ??? ??? ???
Or since when, the presence of tone controls in amp, made the amp not hi-fi anymore – or when you move those knobs, the amp ceases to reproduce hi-fi? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
So how faithful is faithful if it is not really faithful? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
So who is confusing what? :-\
There is a reason why Hi-Fi has the "high" adjective in it. For me, it means to play a recording as accurately as possible. How to achieve that? You've just provided the specs. The better the specs, the better the fidelity.
The result, whether pleasing or not, is another story.
That simple.
-
If Hi-Fi is relative, then why do I see recommendations for B&W's, AE's, MA's, Mordaunt's, NAD, Rotel, Denon etc. Would it be acceptable to us if someone say Bose will be better than a Dynaudio? That a Sakura can be more musical than a Krell?
I don't think so.
PS
I think we're confusing Hi-Fi w/ being musical.
There is a reason why Hi-Fi has the "high" adjective in it. For me, it means to play a recording as accurately as possible. How to achieve that? You've just provided the specs. The better the specs, the better the fidelity.
The result, whether pleasing or not, is another story.
That simple.
True, but you made mention of Sakura and Krell. Bose and others. Can you categorically say Sakura and Bose as not hi-fi? (based on your referenced definition of the hi-fi standard)
Since no recording playback gears can reproduce perfectly, and hi-fi is a standard (exact science, can be measured) which as it seems you knew, at what conditions will a gear (or the sound it reproduced) be not considered hi-fi (just only euphonic - musical) given the specs (assuming you believe them)?
...
hi-fi is not always musical
musical is not always hi-fi
hi-fi is always musical
musical is always hi-fi
nahihilo aqui! ;D
-
gud day, i have a b2 and ra01 combo, and i noticed that its quite makalansing, is that what you mean by hyperdetailed, and is that a bad thing?
-
True, but you made mention of Sakura and Krell. Bose and others. Can you categorically say Sakura and Bose as not hi-fi? (based on your referenced definition of the hi-fi standard)
I didn't say Sakura is not Hi-Fi. Bose pwede pa. But, don't get me wrong. The two brands were mentioned just for comparison. For the sake of discussion.
Since no recording playback gears can reproduce perfectly, and hi-fi is a standard (exact science, can be measured) which as it seems you knew, at what conditions will a gear (or the sound it reproduced) be not considered hi-fi (just only euphonic - musical) given the specs (assuming you believe them)?
...
hi-fi is not always musical
musical is not always hi-fi
hi-fi is always musical
musical is always hi-fi
nahihilo aqui! ;D
hi-fi is not always musical
musical is not always hi-fi
hi-fi can be musical
musical can be hi-fi
-
gud day, i have a b2 and ra01 combo, and i noticed that its quite makalansing, is that what you mean by hyperdetailed, and is that a bad thing?
hi doc, para sa akin hindi po un sobra kalansing ang ibig sabihin ng hyperdtailed -- sobra linaw ang mga instrumento at boses, parang hinimay mo ung orkestra, dinig ultimo mahinang pitik ng cymbals.
depende p0 sa taste nyo kung mas type nyo makalansing na speakers basta hindi tunog lata, hindi p0 kayo naririndi at nakakatagal makinig sa system nyo ok. by the way, kung brandnew pa p0 ang mga gears nyo baka kailangan pa konting "burn-in" bago lumabas ang tunay na tunog. konting pasensya.
just my mamera :)
-
mga tsong kelan ba lumabas ang word na "HI-FI"? lets be honest here. Ang word na "hifi" ay isang technology na nadevelop way way back as sound engineers discovered and invented this word "hifi" based on acoustics. kaya wag tayong ma confused na dahil ang gears natin sa bahay ay either tubes, hi-fi amp or pro amps ang word na hifi is not justifiably applicable.
Sample. Paano kung ang recoding na nabili mo eh wayway back mga 1930's below, may hifi naba noon?,im sure sablay pa ang sound recording noon, tapos you will play it sa gears mo at present, can you say it is producing a hi-fi? kahit na super ganda at expensive ng rigs mo sa bahay? hmmm? :( :( :(
at isa pa wag nyo inconfused ang brand vs hi-fi. like yung ibang guys here, yung comparison dito kanina sa BOSE vs. krell at sakura, dont tell me dahil hindi pa gaano kilala at local lang ang brand ng gears mo eh hindi na hifi or pleasing? hmmm!!! PLEASE PLEASE dont be a brand idiot!!! hindi komo branded ang gears mo eh super ganda na ng audio mo! match mo nga ang sinasabi mong amp na local sa amp na super expensive with the same ratings at pakinggan mo, Im pretty sure nadali ka lang ng pagiging brand idiot mo, dahil most branded or kahit na high end audio is upto profit too.
kaya sa mga nag mamagaling masyado na kunwari sound engineer kayo or Audiophile kayo.
bago kayo tawagin na Audiophile eh hindi dahil sa nalalaman nyo kung hindi dahil sa expirience nyo.
ang mga manufacturers ng mga audio products tend to mix their marketing by adding technicalities here and there kahit sabihin mo pang high end yan, may halo pa rin marketing yan. dont tel me gumawa sila ng magagandang Amplifiers para ibenta sa inyo ng mahal just for fun?, syempre their upto profits din. kaya wag kayo maging stupid or idiots by merely relying on techical nos. okey!
yung iba pa nga dito may kung ano ano pang sinasabi voltage railings PSU etc etc blah blah blah, kelangan mo pa bang malaman yon? eh may mga engineers na ang mga manufacturers for that. lets admit it, most of us here are merely end users, yung iba nakapag basa lang ng magazine or technical books eh akala na nila magagaling na sa sound engineers na sila. dont be a fool okey.
tell us something na magagamit namin at hindi yung hindi namin maiitindihan at maiintimidate lang kami dahil to tell you the truth, wala kayong right to tell something about someones perception of sound.
:o :o :o
-
Grabe, init na nitong thread na ito :) Sana lang panatilihin nating healthy ang discussions dito. Huwag nating gawing avenue for personality bashing ang thread na ito. Pare pareho naman tayo ng hobby/hilig. Kaya nga tayo andito ;) Peace to all!
-
dati cables and interconnects nagawi kung saan-saan. ngayon eto naman. anong kasunod? tube brands comparison, bakit mas maganda tumunog ang nos kesa sa mga bagong produksyon? ganyan talaga ang hobby na eto, kanya2 opinion.
now back to the topic pls...analytical /hyperdtailed speakers................................................ :)
-
If Hi-Fi is relative, then why do I see recommendations for B&W's, AE's, MA's, Mordaunt's, NAD, Rotel, Denon etc. Would it be acceptable to us if someone say Bose will be better than a Dynaudio? That a Sakura can be more musical than a Krell?
I don't think so.
PS
I think we're confusing Hi-Fi w/ being musical.
It is relative! There are no absolutes in high fidelity.
If it were absolute, then we would be able to unanimously
agree on which speaker is the most accurate sounding.
Ultimately, the choice of speakers is based on what we perceive is
more accurate/realistic sounding. Why else would we
have different choices if we have an idea of what 'the absolute
true sound' is?
- Kevlar
-
It is relative! There are no absolutes in high fidelity.
Kaya nga "high" e.
If it were absolute, then we would be able to unanimously
agree on which speaker is the most accurate sounding.
Check the FR curves.
Ultimately, the choice of speakers is based on what we perceive is
more accurate/realistic sounding. Why else would we
have different choices if we have an idea of what 'the absolute
true sound' is?
We choose what we like, what's pleasing. Hi-Fi ends when the ears start deciding.
-
at isa pa wag nyo inconfused ang brand vs hi-fi. like yung ibang guys here, yung comparison dito kanina sa BOSE vs. krell at sakura, dont tell me dahil hindi pa gaano kilala at local lang ang brand ng gears mo eh hindi na hifi or pleasing? hmmm!!! PLEASE PLEASE dont be a brand idiot!!! hindi komo branded ang gears mo eh super ganda na ng audio mo! match mo nga ang sinasabi mong amp na local sa amp na super expensive with the same ratings at pakinggan mo, Im pretty sure nadali ka lang ng pagiging brand idiot mo, dahil most branded or kahit na high end audio is upto profit too.
tell us something na magagamit namin at hindi yung hindi namin maiitindihan at maiintimidate lang kami dahil to tell you the truth, wala kayong right to tell something about someones perception of sound.
:o :o :o
[/quot
Right on bro, ;)MEDYO OT po mods. Common na yata pati dito sa hobby natin ang mga BRAND CONSCIOUS eh kaya they're trying their best to defend what they think is the best out there.Way way back my dad told me that there's only two kind of students, one is yung magaling sa THEORIES and yung 2nd one na magaling naman sa APPLICATIONs,ano ba mas importante?Try to relate this in our hobbies.Would you buy a brand that has a spec sheet that can impress you out of your seat just like that pero when you tried it eh not so impressive pala OR yung may decent specs lang but boy when you tried it you instantly fell in love with it? ??? ako id go for the one i really like and will not consider the popularity,the brand or the price ;D Sa akin basta happy na ako sa tunog nung speakers ko satisfied na ako ;D Kahit sabihin pa na bright,analytical or hyperdetailed or yung worst na masakit sa TENGA,i really dont care! ;D in the first place who would buy something na hindi nya gusto?meron pala yung mga BRAND CONSCIOUS ;D ;D ;DSana lang masunod yung mga payo ng marami dito sa atin na audition audition audition before you buy at wag naman sana pintasan or icriticize yung gears ng fellow members natin after he bought it. ;D Lets just try to ENCOURAGE and not DISCOURAGE fellow members.And by the way ako pa lang yata nag post ng speaker brand na analytical dito ah;D ;D ;D
-
...
musical is not always hi-fi
...
musical can be hi-fi
Simple lang kasi ang ugat ng discussion ni Kevlar at avphile1 eh! ;)
This is one of my last tirades and judge these hypothetical audiophiles: :o
There are 3 audiophiles: si A, si B, at si C. It so happen they have the same audio tast, bought same gear from source to speaker, live in exactly same house and acoustics.
Si A, since he knew he bought the best system his money can afford, decided he will let his system sound as is.
Si B, upon hearing his system, bothered by an unusual sound, tried to correct what he perceived to be the anomaly by using an ‘equalizer’ technique.
Si C, kasi medyo may moolah, bought a audio meter to measure his sound and found out meron siyang peaks and dips at certain frequencies, bought another equipment to correct the dips and peaks sa listening spot niya.
Now, there are another 3 audiophiles, si X, si Y, si Z. As usual same din yung utak nila, bought same systems, and live in exactly the same house and acoustics.
Si X, he knew he bought a good system, and decided nothing to do but to listen to it as it is.
Si Y, listen and decided he wanted more body in the sound so he adjusted what he wanted based on his taste.
Si Z, he bought an audio meter, make measurement and found out every thing is OK, so he listens.
Sino sa kanila ang hi-fi-ish at sino ang euphonics? Si A at si Y ba ang euphonics?
Ang problema kasi, sabi sabi yung iba ng hi-fi, at standard daw yon, at measurable, at objective daw (at hindi relative) and quantity na ito (against being subjective), pero ayaw namang ibigay ang quantification – KAILAN BA SINASABING HI-FI ANG ISANG AUDIO SYSTEM/LISTENING? ANONG MEASUREMENT SA SPECS PARA MA-DECIDE NG MGA NAGBABASA KUNG SILA NGA AY HI-FI OR EUPHONICS LAMANG? ??? ???
Tapos biglang sasabihin ng isa, kapag ginalaw mo ang tone dials mo, euphonics ka na! :P Tapos tanungin mo, di naman masagot, kung anu ano pa sinasabi!
When is a musical be hi-fi? ??? ??? If hi-fi is a known standard to you, and is measurable! Wag na tayong magpaikot-ikot ng sagot.
We will not debate on musical since musical is in the ears of the beholder! (subjective)
Ako naman ay nagtatanong lamang at naglilinaw! Mahahaba ang mga sinulat ng iba, hindi naman sinasagot ang tanong.
Kailangan pa bang I-memorize yan?
Mga kapuso ba kayo o kapamilya? ;D ;D ;D
-
Firstly, the brands I mentioned were just for comparison, for discussion's sake w/c unfortunately registered negative impressions on some of the posters. I apologize for the confusion.
Secondly, it was not my intention to look down on someone else's gears. The ones I've owned are also just entry-levels. But they were enough to introduce me into the world of Hi-Fi and sonic bliss.
I agree that we should audition. I also agree that specs don't matter. But only when I'm choosing gears.
My understanding of Hi-Fi, obviously differs from yours. With Hi-Fi, for me, specs matter. With Hi-Fi, for me, measuring instruments, not the ears should decide.
Again, my apologies to those offended.
-
I agree that we should audition. I also agree that specs don't matter. But only when I'm choosing gears.
My understanding of Hi-Fi, obviously differs from yours. With Hi-Fi, for me, specs matter. With Hi-Fi, for me, measuring instruments, not the ears should decide.
Well, actually, it's really that simple. High Fidelity is a very simple concept, I am totally amused some creatures can't seem to take it. :P They continue to confuse the concept with personal bias and preferences in this hobby. Well anyway, to each his own.
-
Well, actually, it's really that simple. High Fidelity is a very simple concept, I am totally amused some creatures can't seem to take it. :P They continue to confuse the concept with personal bias and preferences in this hobby. Well anyway, to each his own.
... and his answer was... ??? ;D ;D :P :P
Woe unto you, audiophiles and pharisees!!! ;D ;D ;D
AMININ ... >:(
.
.
.
... na hindi alam ang sagot! ;D ;D ;D
Ay!, ayaw na kitang kalaro!! Galit na kita! ;D ;D
-
...My understanding of Hi-Fi, obviously differs from yours...
With Hi-Fi, for me, specs matter. With Hi-Fi, for me, measuring instruments, not the ears should decide.
Were you able to get the specs of your system sound after you buy source up to speakers? Or you just assumed if you combine whatever you purchased, the resulting sound will be within the 'unanswered' standard of hi-fi?
Or did you brought an audio meter to check that each of your component is within the 'unanswered' standard of hi-fi? or you only look for that specs of each equipment individually which comfortably falls within the 'unanswered' standard of hi-fi?
And I assume, you will not use your ears if you are to decide if the item you are buying is within the 'unanswered' standard of hi-fi or not!
PEACE on AUDIOPHILE EARTHLINGS!!! ;D
O bati-bati na tayo ha... laro na ulit tayo bahay-bahayan! ;D ;D
-
Whew! This thread is fun and amusing! ;D
I think the argument all boils down to the definition of high fidelity
music reproduction. What is high fidelity music reproduction?
High fidelity music reproduction is music reproduction that gets you
as close as possible to experiencing 'the sound of the live performance'.
The 'you are there' feeling.
Question:
Are there absolute standards on how to achieve that sound?
If there are, what are the internationally accepted equipment, playback
and recording standards? Absolute figures please, not vague, descriptive
adjectives.
If you can't answer the question above, then there are obviously no standards
to speak of and you have no right to label anybody's equipment, playback
method and recording method as 'not hi-fi' and 'merely euphonic', get it? ;D
- Kevlar
-
okey guys back to the topic, at least nagkaroon tayo ng palitan ng kuro-kuro, by the way parehas din pala ang audio world sa world of culinary, kung sa audio world ang mga audiophiles may critisism sa bawat isa the same with the exec chef's may kanya kanya pintas sa luto nila :D :D :Dhehehe!
So folks ano ba talga ang hyperdetailed speakers sa inyo? by the way, is there such a word "analytical" that will apply sa mga speakers? ang alam ko, sa mga sound engineers na gumawa ng speakers pwedeng applicable yon.
Anyways, I can share with you my expirience, I started to become interested in Audio and I did my own study and research way back 1989 until now with my father as my mentor, by the ways he's an audio engineer designed many audio rooms, hotels and directed some audio rig's that time. My rig started originally sa professional audio tipong mono block amp dedicated each High's-Mid's-Low speakers.
As per my expirience basta complete arrticulated array driver's ang speaker then tunned properly, maganda ang lalabas, pero walang speakers na makakaproduce ng exact 100% sound recording ng isang artist. laging may tolerances +/-, kahit pa super mahal ng speakers na ito.
Those days are the era of discovering the audio world, kaya naman wala pang 5.1 noon, meron lang mono, stereo, quadrosonic. pero nung time na discover yung "high fidelity" or yung word na "hi-fi" as according to the information I gathered, eh its a rise of an audio sound from a single full range speaker into a complete array that can produce as much as possible, 20khz to 20hz. yung tipong ma mi-mimic yung actual sound.
yung speakers na ginagamit nga sa recording studio, hindi pa rin kaya iproduce yung audio ng artist, pero nasa kabilang room lang yon at glass lang ang pagitan, super ganda at class A na ang mga gears dun.
Even Mr. Lucas of THX can't produce the actual reproduction of sound.
Pero alam naman natin dito na hindi pa na iinvent ang speakers that can reproduce an actual sound of the environment, kahit nga a simple grader ma-didistiguish kung actual ang sound na naririnig niya or just a sound coming from a speakers.
so reality check lang, speakers are there just to entertain and highten our self with pleasure.
same as watching TV's or reading book's kung book worm ka, just like that.
Anyways, based on my audio auditioning expirience, according to brand:
Dai-chi (Very good and cheap, somehow with quality)
Konzert (Loud and boomy, Originally started and designed for autosound)
Crown (locally professional)
JBL (Internationally known and one of the bechmark in the audio industry)
Cerwin Vega! (The loudest speakers I've heard, famous for long throw folded horn bass bins)
BOSE (Virtually invinsible and highly talked about by critics and bose bashers)
Def. tech. (30Khz? ??? known for the side firing subwoofers in which by the way immitated by many including dai-ichi)
B&W (nice colors and looks)
NHT (lacks marketing)
MShort (Good and short)
Sonus Faber (Sosyal!!!)
Velodyne (Piano or speakers?)
and other famous, high-end, low-end local and imported brand Etc. etc...
Pero isa pa lang ang masasabi kong hyperdetailed speakers na narinig ko but I can't afford.
Martin Logan (no comment!) coz I was stunned...
-
Whew! This thread is fun and amusing! ;D
Actually, it's not just amusing, it's downright silly. :P
I think the argument all boils down to the definition of high fidelity
music reproduction. What is high fidelity music reproduction?
The definition is quite simple. Do not confuse the definition with personal listening choices and biases.
High fidelity music reproduction is music reproduction that gets you
as close as possible to experiencing 'the sound of the live performance'.
The 'you are there' feeling.
No and I say it again a million times. High Fidelity has nothing to do with illusory "you are there" emotional feelings. Have you heard about Lo-Fi and Mid-Fi? They can also elicit the same illusory feelings.. Even teenagers get them listening to MP3s on their I-pods. But there's nothing, absolutely nothing High Fidelity about MP3s. Capiche????
Question:
Are there absolute standards on how to achieve that sound?
If there are, what are the internationally accepted equipment, playback
and recording standards? Absolute figures please, not vague, descriptive
adjectives.
The Hi-Fi definition implies an objective, a goal and a journey. Playback Hi-fi aims for faithfulness to the orginal recording. The objective is absolute. It is NOT a moving target. But the conditions to achieve that goal are not as there are many systems with varying specs to achieve that goal and there are stops along the road towards it. The objective is even measureable. Because you can always graphically get a snapshot plot and compare the input signal character (from a player) to the speaker's accoustic signal as captured by a high bandwidth microphone and compare how different or similar the waveforms are. It might never look identical, but the more similar, the closer you are to the goal. But that's the techie part. You can always listen on a headphone from a player and compare that to the sound on a headphone from your amp. The idea is the same, faithfullness to the recording. You won't get there in one swoop, that's why the road is filled with stops along the way, with one upgrade milestone over another. And at anytime you want to give up on the Hi Fi route, which can be furstrating as many have done, you can always opt to go the Euphonic route.
If you can't answer the question above, then there are obviously no standards
to speak of and you have no right to label anybody's equipment, playback
method and recording method as 'not hi-fi' and 'merely euphonic', get it? ;D
- Kevlar
Very funny. Merely euophonic??? That's an indictment to you and the class of audiophiles who have gone the euphonic route. Tsk Tsk. You obviously prefer to tailor suit the sound to meet you ear's preference. That's euphonic. There's nothing wrong with that. But there's nothing hi-fi about that, either. A lot of audiophiles go to a large extent to achieve euphony in their gears. Audiophiles with marvelous SETs, VTLs and turntables often opt for the euphonic route. They prefer that to anything Hi-fi-ish. But still without the aid of tone shaping devices. Because they know those tone shaping devices wreak havoc to their signals. Going the euphonic route is another equally valid road to sonic nirvana. Going Hi Fi is another. Hindi ni-la-lang lang yun. ::)
-
Martin Logan (no comment!) coz I was stunned...
Stunning performance ba?? ;D
-
yung speakers na ginagamit nga sa recording studio, hindi pa rin kaya iproduce yung audio ng artist, pero nasa kabilang room lang yon at glass lang ang pagitan, super ganda at class A na ang mga gears dun.
Even Mr. Lucas of THX can't produce the actual reproduction of sound.
Well said. If you check my earlier post, a recording and the actual performance of that reccording can be miles apart. A recording can only attempt to capture the sound of a live performance. Some say it's only 20% of the sound of a real thing. So to even claim that a home playback system is supposed to reproduce real live sounds is a dellusion.
Pero alam naman natin dito na hindi pa na iinvent ang speakers that can reproduce an actual sound of the environment, kahit nga a simple grader ma-didistiguish kung actual ang sound na naririnig niya or just a sound coming from a speakers.
so reality check lang, speakers are there just to entertain and highten our self with pleasure.
You got it is spot on. The average home playback system is cluttered with so many variables for it to reproduce the same qualities of a live musical performance. The most that you can expect it to do, is to playback the records as faithfully as it can.
-
The definition is quite simple. Do not confuse a definition with personal listening choices and biases.
No and I say it again a million times. High Fidelity has nothing to do with illusory "you are there" emotional feelings. Have you heard about Lo-Fi and Mid-Fi? They can also elicit the same illusory feelings.. Even teenagers get them listening to MP3s on their I-pods. But there's nothing, absolutely nothing High Fidelity about MP3s. Capiche????
If I may share my humble opinion.....I agree With AV_phile with the definitions.
No one is criticizing one or the other naman; nor are the other senior member saying hi-fi is superior or euphonic is superior as they fully subscribe to the fact that preference takes precedence over standards-in your room. However, there will be no point of argument if a standard has not been defined so they defined it.
And no, brands do not make a hifi/euphonic sound. Use a raon brand amp and speakers to pursue your goal of a faithful playback and that is hifi; on the other hand ,use the same Raon brand gears with the goal of shaping the sound to be pleasing to the ears and that is euphonic. Nothing wrong with any or both and nothing is superior than the other merely because you as a user is just pursuing a goal. Just my thoughts.
-
I agree with AV_phile...
-
Firstly, the brands I mentioned were just for comparison, for discussion's sake w/c unfortunately registered negative impressions on some of the posters. I apologize for the confusion.
Secondly, it was not my intention to look down on someone else's gears. The ones I've owned are also just entry-levels. But they were enough to introduce me into the world of Hi-Fi and sonic bliss.
I agree that we should audition. I also agree that specs don't matter. But only when I'm choosing gears.
My understanding of Hi-Fi, obviously differs from yours. With Hi-Fi, for me, specs matter. With Hi-Fi, for me, measuring instruments, not the ears should decide.
Again, my apologies to those offended.
ok LANG BRO,ako naman mababaw lang,concern ko lang eh yung mga fellow members natin na just starting in this hobby,baka after reading all the technical arguments eh hindi na makabili ng starting system nila sa kakapili kung ano talaga ang maganda. ;D ;D ;D
-
No and I say it again a million times. High Fidelity has nothing to do with illusory "you are there" emotional feelings. Have you heard about Lo-Fi and Mid-Fi?
O nagdagdag ka pa ng ide-define mo!!! :P :P :P
Di mo nga masagot ano ang standard para masabing hi-fi...
ngayon may mid-fi ka na at lo-fi!!! ;D ;D ;D
Sige nga, i-define ninyo ang mid-fi at lo-fi this time...
... dami sinusulat, wala pa rin ang sagot - straight to the point. ;D ;D ;D
noong una, sabi niya hi-fi is a standard, then later it became a concept. A concept is something that resides in the head - like ideal fidelity - a goal to attain. A standard is specific, with measurable metrics, as in 'HIGH' fidelity, or hi-fi (or mid-fi, or lo-fi).
When do you consider a system a mid-fi, a hi-fi, or a lo-fi? Palagay ko naman some of you are engineers. Can you tell this thread the metrics?
Actually, it's not just amusing, it's downright silly. :P
;D Indeed! Indeed! A measurable standard that cant be defined by people who preaches it is indeed amusing ... and silly!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Bro ahobbit peace man ;D ;D ;D Im very sure av phile is sharing his thoughts to us not to just piss you off.If in anyway you find his points unacceptable then just let it be or try to point it out in a nice way just like what he is doing.Im not taking sides here but if you will not stop with your sarcastic remarks i dont think you and the other guys in this thread will ever meet eye to eye with our objectives.Just let it go bro, breath in breath out oooolah. ;D ;D ;D have a nice weekend to all of us.
-
I am not pissed off! I just find his post simply evading the issue being discussed by hiding thru run arounds and babbles and dont go straight to the point. kaya ayoko siyang kalaro sa bahay bahayan!!! ;D ;D ;D
Housecleaning po!!!
... No need to agonized >:( waiting for the answers from people who sound they know the hi-fi standards and can not give the metrics - just quote endlessly, and the answer is still not there. :P :P
In some forums I have been, the talk when they try to design their amplifiers, is how real the sonic performance of a system - the depth, the sound stage, etc etc. ::) ::)
Of course, the goal of majority (repeat, majority) of audio manufacturer (ideally) is to attain high-fidelity 8). How high is high ??? ? As high as they can produce :D. Thus, for an amplifier, fidelity is typically measured by the flatness of frequency response at a given resistive load and power. For a speaker, it is the flatness of its frequency response across a specific (again, specific, not the whole audio spectrum) given frequency range (not 20-20khz, obviously because very few speaker reproduce such, and manufacturing a speaker reproducing such could be beyond economical practicality and usability). The same for audio sources (CDs, phono, etc).
But merely combining individual qualified hi-fi gear - does not necessarily equate to same level of fidelity measurement attributed to each gear when mesured individually :P :P :P . A 90% near fidelity CD (if there is one) + a 90% near fidelity amp + a 90% near fidelity speaker system, when combined, will not necessarily produce 90% near-fidelity sonic performance - some synergy will just bring you to much lower fidelity measurement.
Why?
Speaker has impedance curve that is not flat across a given frequency range (where it is said to be of high fidelity). The specs that people read (the basis of their fidelity, :P ;D) in amps are measured on a resistive load and certain power point. And when these two (2) high level fidelity equipment now put into synergy, then it is another jungle out there to manage, the stability of an amp to handle varying load (impedance) will now be highlighted/put to test. Can you ('spec' audiophile) see it in the specs? :P :P ;D Did you bring your audio meter to validate the synergy and conclude they are indeed of high level fidelity? .Woe .. audiophiles and pharisees, unless you are telling us here you are also being euphonic when you bought your system (from source to speakers), since you dont rely on ears to determine high fidelity. What a lip service you have !!! :P :P
Thus, some well-off audiophile will further bring their synergy to the nextstep to attain higher level of fidelity, by taking measurement, and employing corrective steps into it. Practically, it is to even out frequency response in the listening spot. The problem of some 'audiophile' here is that when people employ gadgets and do 'alteration' in the signal path to improve final sonic fidelity of their systemsynergy, they say he is hi-fi oriented - because he has measuring gadgets. When the same 'so called' audiophile noted that if some people just uses his ears to improve the level of fidelity of his systemsynergy, he is just being merely euphonics - so they stereo-typed their ears (which can not identify level of fidelity) as if their ears is like the ears of others that can not make judgment of any level of fidelity. :P :P
While people who agreed here on the definition of concept of hi-fi by avphile, and his metric to determine what is considered hi-fi (this one, no matter how I flip this thread, I cant see, and I dont know what a certain person agrees to ???), these agreeing people talk of 2 different things. Avphile1 points to recording fidelity, while the other one talked about real-performace fidelity. Beats me!
In DIY community where some high-end products evolves, the question that typically emanates is: how close is the sound to a real piano, to a real violin, and to whatever - not how close it is to the recording :P! The goal of fidelity is to capture the real thing - not the recording. The goal of the recording is to capture the real thing - the ideal fidelity. The recording strive to capture piano as piano. Your system (synergy) goal should be the ideal fidelity, the real piano, which your recording also did strive to capture. So you wanted your gears (the system setup) to reproduce piano as piano. We wanted to hear a piano as piano,and not a ukelele.
And how will a person judge whether a piano is a piano? by using his audio meter? ??? ;D ;D ;D
Even in live performance, sonic performance differs by person, depending on your location in the performance venue. Some people who bought the expensive ticket can sit in front of the performer. Some poor guys sit at the back. Are you telling me it is the same level of sonic performance theywill be able to lhear to? Even Yamaha in all its excellent DSPs, established their parameters before taking an image of algorhythms to recreate a certain sonic performance at a specified location in a popular concert venue - still wanted to capture real performance - fidelity to the real thing.
Clearly, some disguised have concocted their own definition of fidelity - it is the faithfulness to the recording (this is just limited to amplifier as a stand alone) but not applicable to whole system synergy. But the concept of fidelity is to capture the real thing, the original signal, the original sound - and this is also the goal recording is trying to achieve - that a sound it captured will be delivered to us the same way - unaltered (if they really intended to do it), unless the recording studio are merely euphonics themselves, forcing their own sound as they want based on their heads, who knows? :P.
And you can judge a person that he is merely euphonic if he wants a piano to sound a ukelele. Or that person has been proven not to hear a real piano in all his life!!!
I assume some of you dont use your ears to determine the fidelity of a piano sound, or you just assume your system, as is, will put out the fidelity of a piano no matter what, what reaches your ears do not matter or else you will succumb to be euphonics!
When will be the time, the record wanted us to hear, as is - probably in sound effect, as in HT implementations where all fictional sounds abounds. This time, your DSP should be accurate. hi-fi? :P ;D
;D ;D ;D
Kahaba naman nire! ;D ;D ;D
-
I'm not taking sides here. Both camps have valid arguments and have supported their claims well. The only elements missing in the discussion are respect and courtesy for other posters. We can always disagree in an agreeable manner. All of the issues discussed here are just concepts which may or may not even hold true in reality. I mean, who cares if you use tone controls or not? That's for you to decide. As for me, you could call my listening style whatever you want be it euphonic, hi-fi, or any other name. I won't get hurt or offended. I don't care as long as I enjoy listening to my system. Just don't force me to alter the settings of my amp et al. to suit your taste then force me to like it that way. Dun siguradong mag-aaway tayo :) Peace to you all!
-
Playback Hi-fi aims for faithfulness to the orginal recording. The objective is absolute.
Geez, you are avoiding the real definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction'
by talking about a completely different topic altogether: 'playback hi-fi'.
I am not talking about 'playback hi-fi' or 'playback fidelity'. I am talking about
'high fidelity music reproduction'.
I'd like to state again the definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction':
High fidelity music reproduction is 'music reproduction that brings you as close
as possible to experiencing the sound of the live performance' nothing more,
nothing less. ;D
What we are comparing here is the 'reproduced sound' to the 'sound of the live performance'.
The closer the 'reproduced sound' is to the sound of 'live instruments', 'real voices',
and the 'acoustic signature' of the live performance, in short, the 'live performance itself',
the 'higher fidelity' is the 'reproduced sound'.
Now, do you agree with this definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction'?
Do you realize now that 'playback hi-fi' doesn't always guarantee
'higher fidelity music reproduction' than any other playback method,
and that it is completely possible that 'customized playback' may in fact,
bring you closer to 'higher fidelity music reproduction'? ;D
- Kevlar
-
???
-
Geez, you are avoiding the real definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction'
by talking about a completely different topic altogether: 'playback hi-fi'.
I am not talking about 'playback hi-fi' or 'playback fidelity'. I am talking about
'high fidelity music reproduction'.
I'd like to state again the definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction':
High fidelity music reproduction is 'music reproduction that brings you as close
as possible to experiencing the sound of the live performance' nothing more,
nothing less. ;D
What we are comparing here is the 'reproduced sound' to the 'sound of the live performance'.
The closer the 'reproduced sound' is to the sound of 'live instruments', 'real voices',
and the 'acoustic signature' of the live performance, in short, the 'live performance itself',
the 'higher fidelity' is the 'reproduced sound'.
Now, do you agree with this definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction'?
Do you realize now that 'playback hi-fi' doesn't always guarantee
'higher fidelity music reproduction' than any other playback method,
and that it is completely possible that 'customized playback' may in fact,
bring you closer to 'higher fidelity music reproduction'? ;D
- Kevlar
As should be quite clear in my earlier posts on the matter, High Fidelity has two areas, whether you like it or not. Playback Hi-fi and Recording Hi Fi. The two objectives are entirely different. There is no promise of seamlessness between the two. The recording process ends with a record, a CD or LP. Those products have no preferrence on what playback gears are to be used. OTH, the playback process ends with accoustic waveforms meant to reach the listener's ears. Those waveforms, coming as they are from recrods, will never even come close to the waveforms before they were captured on the record. It is the height of illusion, correction, dellusion, to even think that playback can ever reproduce the waveforms that were attempted to be captured on record.
High Fidelity starts with the Recording process. Recording High Fidelity aims to capture the sounds of a musical performance whether live or not as faithfully as it can. But the most it can, given the state of technology used, is to come close. This sonic REPLICA can only approximate, not duplicate the waveforms that went into the recording process. But the objective is clear and that has been the impetus in every recording technological iteration over the last century.
Playback High Fidelity is no more successful. Given the state of technology used in the playback process, it aims to faithfully reproduce what is contained in a recording the best way it can. It doesn't aim to reproduce what real instruments sound like. Nor does it aim to produce goose bumps or an illusion of a live performance. Playback High Fidelity simply aims to be faithful to the recording. If in the process, depending on the listener and the degree to which the faithfullness to the recording is accomplished, the high fidelity process can impart goose bumps or illusion of a real performance, then that's just a personal subjective effect of unleashing a playback high fidelity system. Not the objective.
And since we started talking about speakers, we are really talking about home playback high fidelity. That's what we have at home. And there's nothing consumers can do about recording fidelity except to buy the record or not. When you play that record at home, the most that a high fidelity home playback equipment can do is to reproduce the information contained in the recording as faithfully as it can. Nothing more, nothing less. A record is what you start with whenever you use a playback home system. Your system can never go beyond what you started with. Ofcourse you can color the sound that reaches your ears using tone controls and equalizers to suit your taste. But you're not going beyond a record, you're mutilating the record with your personal biases. Hence, you are not being faithfull to the record, you are just giving reign to your preferrences. The fact that you mutiliated the signals using phase-shifting and distorting tone shapers gurantees that you've flouted the objective of HighFidelity.
There are certain facts held unassailable in the high fidielity industry. One of these is there is no such thing as LIVE REFERENCE for any recorded musical performance. What you get on CDs and LPs is a RECORDING MIX or a STUDIO MIX that is entirely a sonic production that stands on it own. There is no reference, live or not, on whether the sound on a record is correct or not. It is a production, Not even a reproduction. A record is a product of the recording engineers and artists who heard the sounds from a set of monitor speakers. It is created using a mix of various dubs and overdubs from different large multi-track multichannel open reels, whether digital or analog and laid down into tracks or downmixed into stereo masters using studio-grade monitor speakers. Even the live concert events as captured on record will never sound the same as what the audience heard from large JBl or altec lansing speakers or from the accoustics of a theater. Different microphone qualities and placements can only attempt to capture the soncs, not duplicate them. In other words, the records we use are NOWHERE near live real sounds. Recordings, even from the finest labels, are an approximation, way way different from how the real live musical instruments sound. Like I said, some pundits even say they're just 20%. The more complex the musical piece, the less recording fidelity is atttainable. But a record still carries the stamp of approval from the artists and record engineers who know how their records should sound based on their best judgement after being exposed to live instruments more often than ordinary joes are. And I have no reason to think I should know better. Their best is the most I can expect, just a recording production, a close REPLICA, but never the real thing. While the recording objective aims to capture a performance as faithfully as possible, the end result is often aritifcial, with reverbs added, overdubs made, panned from one channel to another, or even equalized and compressed as in most new age, synthesizer, pop, fusion jazz, rock, country and disco recordings. So to even claim that high fidelity aims to reproduce the sound of a live performance, you might as well ask for the moon.
And I can anticipate your response to say that since there is no live reference to a recording, then every listener is free to shape the sound from that record any way he or she chooses. Ofcourse you can. I have no problem with that. Like I said, I have gone to great lengths to expound on the definition and objectives of high fidelity. I am not telling you or anyone how you should listen to you records. Feel free to manipulate the signals from a record if you find them less than pleasant or life-like based on what you think is more life-like. What I know is that tone shaping devices are a great disservice to the high fidelity concept. And apart from that, all I am saying is this. You start and end with two things: A recording from established labels you are confident consistently deliver great sounds as faithfully as they can from any performance. And the most neutral, transparent and accurate home playback system you can get that is capable of revealing such a record in all its majesty. And you will know what great sounds can be had with the state of recording and playback technology we have at the moment. Given the state of technology we have, a well-made recording is the closest anyone can have to a live performance. And once at home, a high fidelity playback system that can do justice to such a recording can better do its job of indulging me as a listener. There's greater likelihood I can have goose bumps and a "you are there" feeling with such a system than in one using tone shapers. But that's just me ofcourse.
-
In my humble opinion, wala pong kinalaman ang frequency range sa pagiging analytical ng speakers :( :( :(
Mas maganda siguro kung i define nyo muna ang ibig sabihin ng Analytical :)
Hijo,
I'm just replying to the author of the thread...Ngayon kung gusto mong malaman ang actual performance with respect to frequency range, I suggest gumamit ka nang graphical sweep tests or tingnan mo sa spectrum analyzer kung papaano nag-be-behaved ang sound signal na dumadaloy at lumalabas from your source going to cables-to DSP, MOS FET of your amp going out again to your speaker cables then processed/filtered sa crossover at lalabas sa speaker drivers mo. Dito mo makikita ang actual responses ng sound sa loudspeakers. Nag-site lang ako ng media para mas detailed at well-defined ang magiging output, kasama na iyong mga audiophile-quality cds (SACD, DVD-Audio or vinyls). Actually in-correct iyong term na analytical pagdating sa speakers, pero ayokong lumihis sa topic. Ngayon kung gusto mong malaman ang ibig kong sabihin, pakinggan mong maigi ang kayang marinig na sound ng tenga mo from highs-to lows. If you can audibly distinguished the highs (ie 18-20Khz kase baka sumakit na ang tenga mo @ 30Khz) against sa lows (45-25Hz), then you're in the best position para mo masabi na OK ang speakers na ginagamit mo.
Hindi kailangan maging hyperdetailed ang speakers...Ang kailangan ay balanced, clear at well-defined ang lahat ng frequencies from highs to mids to lows at less ang signal loss plus ang distortion. Dapat ang sounds coming from different notes in a different octaves by different musical instruments ay independent, hindi muddy at labu-labo especially sa higher dBs.
OK...sige at kumusta sa iyo.
-
Edison Records logo from 1910 sleeve.
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/b/b0/EdisonRecordSleeveLivingArtist.jpg)
-
Gentlemen,
I think we better hold our horses..... :) :) :) :)
Cheers.....
-
If you can audibly distinguished the highs (ie 18-20Khz kase baka sumakit na ang tenga mo @ 30Khz) against sa lows (45-25Hz), then you're in the best position para mo masabi na OK ang speakers na ginagamit mo.
Bro, dont be offended? but a human audible hearing is only 20hz-20khz, so 30khz? hindi mo na maririnig yun at hindi sasakit ang tenga mo coz, eg. sa mga warehouse's or storage house kung meron kayong napapansin na parang tweeters, those are pest repellant's, they use sound that produce ultrahigh frequency to drive away pest and insects, my question is do you hear them? hindi diba? coz their producing 22khz higher, only such creatures hear them and this drive them crazy. like yung sa "buster cat" if your familiar with this product, these drive away rats.
anyways, yung well below 20hz naman, you can no longger hear that frequency, but you can feel them, subwoofers often go way below 20hz thats the time yung mga things nyo sa bahay is already moving, woofer's can only produce frequency upto 20hz thats the lowest. I've even seen the US military sa showcase of firepower nila sa Discovery channel using ultra low frequency para magiba ang structure's ng enemy nila, ganun ka powerful ang sound in the right tune and in the right hand.
see medyo malayo na sa topic pero kung titignan nyo ang side na ito, you'll be respecting frequency response coz often na mimis-use sa pagbibigay ng kung ano ano info about frequencies.
So before posting naman, make sure ni research nyo ang ilalabas nyo info at kayang nyong ma justify if ever tanungin kayo ng ka hobbyist natin sa forum.
dont be offended guys ha?
by the ways the info i just mentioned are actual information I gathered not only from my field of studies but also on some well documented research and archives.
-
Hijo,
I'm just replying to the author of the thread...Ngayon kung gusto mong malaman ang actual performance with respect to frequency range, I suggest gumamit ka nang graphical sweep tests or tingnan mo sa spectrum analyzer kung papaano nag-be-behaved ang sound signal na dumadaloy at lumalabas from your source going to cables-to DSP, MOS FET of your amp going out again to your speaker cables then processed/filtered sa crossover at lalabas sa speaker drivers mo. Dito mo makikita ang actual responses ng sound sa loudspeakers. Nag-site lang ako ng media para mas detailed at well-defined ang magiging output, kasama na iyong mga audiophile-quality cds (SACD, DVD-Audio or vinyls). Actually in-correct iyong term na analytical pagdating sa speakers, pero ayokong lumihis sa topic. Ngayon kung gusto mong malaman ang ibig kong sabihin, pakinggan mong maigi ang kayang marinig na sound ng tenga mo from highs-to lows. If you can audibly distinguished the highs (ie 18-20Khz kase baka sumakit na ang tenga mo @ 30Khz) against sa lows (45-25Hz), then you're in the best position para mo masabi na OK ang speakers na ginagamit mo.
FYI
the MOS FET your talking about Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor (MOS) Field Effect Transistor (FET)
Discrete power MOSFETs employ semiconductor processing techniques that are similar to those of today's VLSI circuits, although the device geometry, voltage and current levels are significantly different from the design used in VLSI devices. The metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) is based on the original field-effect transistor introduced in the 70s. The invention of the power MOSFET was partly driven by the limitations of bipolar power junction transistors (BJTs) which, until recently, was the device of choice in power electronics applications.
see not all amp is using this kind of transistor.
better research on this first before using the word MOS FET baka kasi ma mis interpret mo here is the link http://www.irf.com/technical-info/appnotes/mosfet.pdf
-
So to even claim that high fidelity aims to reproduce the sound of a live performance,
you might as well ask for the moon.
Hahaha! I am amused! ;D
I kinda like your 'moon' analogy but I'd like to point out to you that
it was never mentioned in the definition that 'high fidelity music
reproduction' aims to reproduce the sound of a live performance'... ;D
Here's the definition again of 'high fidelity music reproduction'
in case you misunderstood it the first time around.... ;D
High fidelity music reproduction is 'music reproduction that brings
you as close as possible to experiencing the sound of the
live performance'
Do you Agree or Disagree? ;D
You still haven't answered this question. :P
Given that you agree to this definition, you will note that:
1. It was never mentioned that high fidelity music reproduction
aims to 'duplicate' or 'reproduce' the live performance.
It only stated that it aims to bring you 'as close as possible' to the
live performance.
So how 'close' is 'as close as possible'?
There are no specific standards really! This leaves much flexibility
in choosing the equipment, recording methods, and playback methods.
What matters in 'high fidelity music reproduction' is the end result.
Since it is impossible to duplicate the sound of the live performance,
then a 'high fidelity music reproduction' system should at least reproduce
musical instruments and human voices realistically - like the real thing!
Try reading the definition again of 'high fidelity music reproduction':
It does not aim to 'reproduce the live performance'; it only aims to get
as close to it as possible.
2. Given the definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction' above, which
focuses on the 'end result' and not on the 'methods' or 'steps' to get
there, do you now agree that it is completely possible that
'customized playback' may in fact, bring you closer to
'higher fidelity music reproduction' than an 'accurate playback'
which may 'highlight' the deficiencies of the recording?
If you can focus your replies to these two specific questions
then I would be interested to listen to what you have to say.
If you keep on focusing on 'playback fidelity' which is a completely
different topic altogether, then I'm outta here. :P
- Kevlar
-
High fidelity music reproduction is 'music reproduction that brings
you as close as possible to experiencing the sound of the
live performance'
Do you Agree or Disagree? ;D
You still haven't answered this question. :P
Your definition sounds like an advertisement from Yamaha's "natiural sound" or some other Hi fi brands out there. ;D This is often the banner ad ascribing qualties to their sound as "bringing closer to sound realism as never before" I have nothing against adopting such promise to defining High Fidelity, even adding "in music reproduction" to the term, which is totally unnecessary. But those words don't define High Fidelity. They define a promise to the consumer. High Fidelity doesn't promise anything. It has no pretense to being an ad. It simply defines a condition and an objective. Now, whether the listener actually feels he/she is closer to "live performance," that's his personal subjective perception. And different people have different subjective perceptions. As I said, again, there's nothing subjective or even remotely personal about the defintion of high fidelity. Being "as close as possible to a live performance" is a subjective personal assessment of a performance of a sound system. DIfferent people would have different thresholds on when such a condition is achieved.
But i have no quarrel with your words. Despite the fact that you're defining an objective term using a very subjecitve promise. Semantically, "being as close as possible to a live performance" can be considered a subjective equivalent to "being as close as possible to a recording," which is really just another way of saying being as faithful to a recording as possible. Afterall, a recording is the closest you can ever get to a live performance at home. But i'd stick to the words "faithful to the recording."
So how 'close' is 'as close as possible'?
There are no specific standards really! This leaves much flexibility
in choosing the equipment, recording methods, and playback methods.
What matters in 'high fidelity music reproduction' is the end result.
Since it is impossible to duplicate the sound of the live performance,
then a 'high fidelity music reproduction' system should at least reproduce
musical instruments and human voices realistically - like the real thing!
Try reading the definition again of 'high fidelity music reproduction':
It does not aim to 'reproduce the live performance'; it only aims to get
as close to it as possible.
Ofcourse, there are no standards to "being as close as possible to a live performance." How can you put a standard to a personal subjective perception?
Again, like I said in my previous post, a recording can be miles apart from the actual performance from where the record was made. And recordings have no LIVE REFERENCE. See my previous post. The record stand on its own merits as there is no right or wrong sounds in recordings. The perception of right or wrong sounds is again a personal assessment. The perception of how close it is to a live performance is a matter of personal taste based on what he thinks and feels sounds right. High Fidelity does not pressume to know nor impose what is the right sound for every person. It only wants to be faithful to the recording. Simple.
2. Given the definition of 'high fidelity music reproduction' above, which
focuses on the 'end result' and not on the 'methods' or 'steps' to get
there, do you now agree that it is completely possible that
'customized playback' may in fact, bring you closer to
'higher fidelity music reproduction' than an 'accurate playback'
which may 'highlight' the deficiencies of the recording?
"Customized playback?" If you mean using tone controls and equalizers, I don't see how mutilating the signals from a record using phase shifting and distorting tone shapers can bring you any closer to a "live perofrmance." I repeat for the Nth time. With the present state of technology, a well made recording is the closest you can ever get to a live performance captured on the medium of your choice. That's all you have when playing your sound system. And reproducing such a record as faithfully as possible allows you to perceptually narrow the proximity between what you hear and the sounds of a live performance, limited only by the degrees of accuracy, transparency and neutrality that different sound systems have. Stated differently, because your are attempting to reproduce the recording with as much fidelity as possible, and because the recording is the closest you can ever have to a live performance at home, without attempting to alter or modify the signals, there's a greater chance you can have a perception of being closer to the live sounds that is right for you.
If you can focus your replies to these two specific questions
then I would be interested to listen to what you have to say.
If you keep on focusing on 'playback fidelity' which is a completely
different topic altogether, then I'm outta here. :P
- Kevlar
Now that's really amusing. ;D How can "playback fidelity" be a "completely different topic? Nasaan ka ba, nasa recording studio ka ba? That's the only case when playback fidelity becomes almost irrelevant, as you'd be concerned more with recording fidelity. When you're at home, the one thing that is very relevant when using your sound system is playback. Unless you do home recordings, everytime you plunk in a CD or LP or tape, it's all about playback. For consumers, High Fidelity is really just about Home Playback Fidelity. You have nothing to say about the recording fidelity. You either buy a record or you don't. Everything else is playback. Capiche?? ;D
-
(1)...those words don't define High Fidelity. They define a promise to the consumer. High Fidelity doesn't promise anything. It has no pretense to being an ad. It simply defines a condition and an objective.
(2)...Semantically, "being as close as possible to a live performance" can be considered a subjective equivalent to "being as close as possible to a recording...
(3)High Fidelity does not pressume to know nor impose what is the right sound for every person. It only wants to be faithful to the recording. Simple.
(4) a well made recording is the closest you can ever get to a live performance captured on the medium of your choice.
My comments: ;D
(1) Where's 'promise' in the definition? Did it say high fidelity music reproduction 'promises to bring you as close
as possible to experiencing the sound of the live performance'? The definition says 'music reproduction that brings
you as close as possible to experiencing the sound of the live performance'. It implies an end result,
not a promise. The end result is not perfect reproduction of the sound of the live performance...
It is simply 'music reproduction' that is as close as possible to it.
Hmmm... You have a distorted way of interpreting definitions... ;D
(2) "being as close as possible to a live performance" can be considered a subjective equivalent to "being as close as possible to a recording...
What????!!! I am just amazed! ;D How can 'being as close as possible to a live performance'
be a subjective equivalent to 'being as close as possible to a recording'? Do you define 'live performance' = 'recording'?
What the...??? :o
I think you are seriously confusing again 'high fidelity music reproduction' with 'high fidelity playback'.
The first one 'aims to bring you as close as possible to the sound of the live performance; it is
ultimately concerned with the end result; the second one (high fidelity playback)
'aims to bring you as close as possible to what was actually recorded; no compensations/customizations
whatsoever for recording deficiencies/anomalies that would have otherwise improved the sound and
brought the sound closer to the sound of the live performance... Don't confuse the two, ok? They are
entirely different and they have entirely different goals. ;)
(3) High Fidelity does not presume to know nor impose what is the right sound for every person.
It only wants to be faithful to the recording. Simple.
I agree 100% with the first part, the concept of the 'right sound' is purely personal. That is why there was never
a 'high fidelity consortium' that created 'standards' for what is 'high fidelity music reproduction' and what is not
because they themselves would never agree on what is 'high fidelity sound' and what is not. It is purely personal.
'It only wants to be faithful to the recording'?
How many times do I have to repeat, 'high fidelity playback' is not
the same as 'high fidelity music reproduction'... You are confusing again the two entirely different terms...
Please refer to 'paragraph 2' of my second comment (comment #2)... ;D
(4) a well made recording is the closest you can ever get to a live performance captured on the medium of your choice
I agree 100%!!! But how many recordings are 'well made" so that there is no need to 'customize' their
playback as they already sound 'close to the live performance'? 25%? What about the remaining
75% pop/rock records, should you just stop buying them even if they are the best musical compositions
produced on earth?
The problem with your concept of 'high fidelity music reproduction' is that you focus so much on the
'standard' steps or the 'methods' to get their. You have no control about the recording fidelity
which is already a handicap, and you make it worse by refusing to control 'playback' to compensate
for 'recording deficiencies'.
You emphasize so much on the 'standard steps' or 'methodology' to achieve high fidelity music reproduction
(which are only applicable for very few good recordings [about 25%]), that you overlook the 'end result'
which is what matters most in this hobby and which is actually the essense of
'high fidelity music reproduction' --- to bring you as close as possible to the sound of the
live performance.
No, 'high fidelity music reproduction' is not aimed to 'duplicate' or 'reproduce' the live performance.
It is simply to bring you closer to it, and bringing you closer to it means that voices, musical instruments
and acoustic spaces in the recordings, should at least sound close to the real thing.
If an accurate playback of the recording does not achieve this, then by all means you should
not further handicap yourself by not doing anything. You are already 'handicapped' by the bad
recording, why should you further 'handicap' yourself when you have control over the playback?
Don't get me wrong. I'd like to emphasize that like you, I aim for the flattest, most neutral
and most transparent speakers/audio equipment around. I aim for 'playback fidelity'
as much as possible. But the real world isn't like that. That methodology is only applicable
for at most 25% of the recordings (mostly jazz/classical/audiophile grade). I happen to like
pop/rock records also which comprise at least 50% of the best composed music in the world.
Ultimately, it is not the 'methodology' or the 'steps' that matter most. I don't say they don't
matter, because they do, but they should not make you forget that it is the 'end result' that
we are after, not the 'steps' or 'methodology'. And the 'end result' is 'getting the listener
as close as possible to the sound of the live performance, not the sound of the recording'.
- Kevlar
-
My comments: ;D
Hmmm... You have a distorted way of interpreting definitions... ;D
- Kevlar
I agree that most of us learn so much from discussions here but maybe it is better reading the good points of concerned members if we try using more friendly words. Most of the time good arguments loses its value because of the words used to convey.. ;)
This is just a friendly reminder .. :)
-
Much better to go thru this thread every morning than to read the newspaper. ;D ;D
-
Thats what Im doing mas mura instead of buying newspaper na common lang
ang balita....
Hayyyyy, still waiting for the speakers that could be decided on this trend..but on the budget level lang po.
Cheers.
-
Thats what Im doing mas mura instead of buying newspaper na common lang
ang balita....
Hayyyyy, still waiting for the speakers that could be decided on this trend..but on the budget level lang po.
Cheers.
Nag hahanap ka ba sir? Ang maipapayo ko lang sir is pakinggan mo yung tunog na lumalabas dun sa speaker na ino-audition mo at wag yung "BIBIG" nun nasa tabi mo. ;D ;D
-
kimpao alin - yung bumubulong ng: maganda yan, kunin mo na yan!! ;D ;D
-
kimpao alin - yung bumubulong ng: maganda yan, kunin mo na yan!! ;D ;D
Sakto!!!!!......... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Nag hahanap ka ba sir? Ang maipapayo ko lang sir is pakinggan mo yung tunog na lumalabas dun sa speaker na ino-audition mo at wag yung "BIBIG" nun nasa tabi mo. ;D ;D
hehehe! ang lakas nga ng impluwensiya ng mga tao sa paligid-- even greater than the speaker you are trying to test. i call this the "MIRON" Factor ;D
-
I agree that most of us learn so much from discussions here but maybe it is better reading the good points of concerned members if we try using more friendly words. Most of the time good arguments loses its value because of the words used to convey.. ;)
This is just a friendly reminder .. :)
Tumpak! This is supposed to be a friendly forum. We are all here to share whatever we know about audio. Hindi naman ito contest kung sino ang pinakamagaling, kung sino ang tama, o kung sino ang pinakamaraming alam. Lahat tayo ay may natututunan sa bawat isa. Yun lang po :)
-
I agree that most of us learn so much from discussions here but maybe it is better reading the good points of concerned members if we try using more friendly words. Most of the time good arguments loses its value because of the words used to convey.. ;)
This is just a friendly reminder .. :)
Tumpak! This is supposed to be a friendly forum. We are all here to share whatever we know about audio. Hindi naman ito contest kung sino ang pinakamagaling, kung sino ang tama, o kung sino ang pinakamaraming alam. Lahat tayo ay may natututunan sa bawat isa. Yun lang po :)
Ok. Ayoko na mag-discuss further dito kay I seem to lack 'friendly words'
and that I am perceived as contesting for 'sino ang pinakamagaling'. ;D
I'm outta here.
But before that, let me explain para may 'due process' before you petition me out
of this thread... ;D
1. 'distorted' is a relatively friendly word for a 'heated' discussion like in this thread.
I could have used the word 'nasty' if I wanted 'less friendly'... ;D
2. I am not contesting for 'sino ang pinakamagaling'. I am willing to 'eat my words'
if my viewpoints are clearly 'faulty' or 'misleading'.
Having said both, I'm outta here...
I will just go back to where I belong... the B&W 600 series thread. ;D
Thank you for your comments. I'll keep them in mind in my future posts.
;D Kevlar
-
This is like comparing apples and oranges. Hindi ko na maalala kung ano yung unang pinagtatalunan.
-
Tumpak! This is supposed to be a friendly forum. We are all here to share whatever we know about audio. Hindi naman ito contest kung sino ang pinakamagaling, kung sino ang tama, o kung sino ang pinakamaraming alam. Lahat tayo ay may natututunan sa bawat isa. Yun lang po :)
Ok. Ayoko na mag-discuss further dito kay I seem to lack 'friendly words'
and that I am perceived as contesting for 'sino ang pinakamagaling'. ;D
I'm outta here.
But before that, let me explain para may 'due process' before you petition me out
of this thread... ;D
1. 'distorted' is a relatively friendly word for a 'heated' discussion like in this thread.
I could have used the word 'nasty' if I wanted 'less friendly'... ;D
2. I am not contesting for 'sino ang pinakamagaling'. I am willing to 'eat my words'
if my viewpoints are clearly 'faulty' or 'misleading'.
Having said both, I'm outta here...
I will just go back to where I belong... the B&W 600 series thread. ;D
Thank you for your comments. I'll keep them in mind in my future posts.
;D Kevlar
No need to go, Kevlar. Lahat tayo nadadala ng emotions natin. I'm sure Sir Jerix posted that as a reminder for all of us.
-
Obviously, some posters coiuldn't carry a decent argument. I shouldn't have wasted my time dignifying the post of a cranially destitute poster. For now, I'll refrain from stooping down to the creature's level.
"cranially destitute poster" - i like the term... sir, hanggang ngayon ba, di ka pa natuto dito sa pdvd? ;D
-
No need to go, Kevlar. Lahat tayo nadadala ng emotions natin. I'm sure Sir Jerix posted that as a reminder for all of us.
your correct bumblebee ;)
Bro Kevlar - no offense meant.. its OK ;) thnx anyway for clarifying your intentions when u said that word. at least we all know now and concerned people can relax. Because without you explaining it, it is a lil different. You can call my speakers DISTORTED yes got no problem with that because sometimes thats true, but i will feel something else when that word is used to refer to my way of thinking. thats something else...I like your points too. With all the pros and cons being presented, readers are getting two birds with one stone. Most of us cant even participate because they appear too technical. Continue posting --= the reminder is for all us. :D
-
"cranially destitute poster" - i like the term... sir, hanggang ngayon ba, di ka pa natuto dito sa pdvd? ;D
You're right. Yun ang hirap sa akin. Di na ako nadala. I always assume people are level headed in any argument. ;D Kaya ayun, I also erupt when the other side can't live up to the challenge and prefers to make insinuations and editorialize on my stand instead . Kesa patulan ko pa i'll just ignore the offending post. At least I try to be more "creative" with words when what I really meant could have been better described with those banned 4-letter words. ;D
-
You're right. Yun ang hirap sa akin. Di na ako nadala. I always assume people are level headed in any argument. ;D Kaya ayun, pag na-inis, I also erupt. At least I try to be more innovative with words when what I really meant are better described with those 4-letter words. ;D
;) ... and some people think I am pissed off? ;D
Sabi po niya, isang standard po ang hi-fi, nasusukat, at hindi relative o subjective - in short, may tiyak na sukat at kailangang gumamit ng panukat (siguro gaya ng oscilloscope)!
Kaya may tinatawag na audio gear as (1) hi-fi , (2) mid-fi , (3) lo-fi.
Ang di lang masagot:
(1) kailan ba ang isang audio gear ay tinuturing na hi-fi - ano ang sukat niya ayon sa sinasabi niyang standard na sukatan?
(2) kailan ba ang isang audio gear ay tinuturing na mid-fi - ano ang sukat niya ayon sa sinasabi niyang standard na sukatan?
(3) kailan ba ang isang audio gear ay tinuturing na lo-fi - ano ang sukat niya ayon sa sinasabi niyang standard na sukatan?
Ang BOSE ba ay hi-fi, mid-fi, o lo-fi? at bakit? ;D
Ang Krell ba ay hi-fi, mid-fi, o lo-fi? at bakit? ;D ;D
Ang mga nagtu-tubo ba ay hi-fi, mid-fi o lo-fi? at bakit? o baka kaya none of the above kasi euphonics sila? ;D ;D ;D
Pasensya na po! Ang definition nila ng hi-fi ay subjective pa rin, kasi wala yung sukat na kailangang makita para mataguriang hi-fi ang isang audio gear.
Hindi po nila makita ano ang sukat ng isang hi-fi, ng isang mid-fi at ng isang lo-fi.
Hindi ko rin po makita!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Para sa akin hifi is objective. Kasi sound is objective, as in the reproduced waveform is as close as possible to the produced waveform. Its not the same as saying "bringing you the experience of live music as close as possible." Experience is subjective, waveforms are not.
The keywords there as mentioned several times are "as close as possible". That's why its not called "exact fidelity" just "high fidelity." The question then is what does "as close as possible" mean? I dunno. Is there a standard? I dunno. But just because we can't put an exact figure on it or that a standard definition exisits (am assumming there isn't), its no longer objective. As concepts these terms are objective. What's subjective is how people use the terms loosely to descibe their experience.
But really all these debate is moot and academic to me kasi its not the taxonomy that governs my listening enjoyment.
-
Para sa akin hifi is objective. Kasi sound is objective, as in the reproduced waveform is as close as possible to the produced waveform. Its not the same as saying "bringing you the experience of live music as close as possible." Experience is subjective, waveforms are not.
You got it dead on, Garp. People often confuse the objectives of this hobby with the objectives of High Fidelity. They're entirely different. High fidelity leans more towards the objective and measureable. On the other hand, the hobby deals with personal experience. The hobby induges your personal experience on what sounds right for you or what sounds closest to your personal perception of real musical sounds, if at all that's what you want to achieve sonic nirvana. High Fidelity doesn't deal with perceptions. Its objective of faithfulness to the recording at home reproduction or playback is just another road to your sonic nirvana. In other words, Hi fi is just an option to take. You can go to the more exotic and subjective Euphonic route if you like.
The keywords there as mentioned several times are "as close as possible". That's why its not called "exact fidelity" just "high fidelity." The question then is what does "as close as possible" mean? I dunno. Is there a standard? I dunno. But just because we can't put an exact figure on it or that a standard definition exisits (am assumming there isn't), its no longer objective. As concepts these terms are objective. What's subjective is how people use the terms loosely to descibe their experience.
I should have said it that way. "As close as possible" really depends on your own perception. You cannot put a standard on personal experiences, except your own, which only applies to you and no one else. Having said that, the definition of high fidelity does imply some measureable " standard" of sorts. The implicit standard are the conditions that can accomplish faithfulness to the recording. When you aim to be faithfull to a recording, the only way to attain this is to use players, amplifiers and speakers with performance traits that are neutral, transparent and accurate in the room that is likewise. To be neutral suggests the smallest db deviation of any frequency from FLAT response across the audio bandwidth, the least % THD, TIMs and IMs and other distrotion products that add or subtract to the original signals across the audio bandwith at any power setting. To be transparent suggests the widest bandwith for all the recorded music signal to pass through unimpeded from the softest to the loudest. It also suggests the least interchannel crosstalk conditions and the least phase shifts that hamper the soundstage. TO be accurate suggests the lowest db noise floors that potentially obscure the weakest details of the signals, the highest slew rates and rise times to allow the fastest signals to reveal itself and a great damping factor to let the bass signals act the way it was recorded. Actually, the meaning of these three attributes have very slim boundaries that it is very easy to jumble the definitions of each with one another. It really doesn't matter, for as along as we know what these conditions are in our best efforts to achieve high fidelity. These condiitons are what we look for in the specs of our gears and some of these also apply and we measure the accoustic qualities of rooms. So they're measureable. High Fidelity is measureable.
Now if you have the conditions that can attain your hgihest possible fidelity to the recorded music, then your personal perceptions now enter the picture on whether those high fidelity sounds are close enough to the live performance you remember to be in one of your memorable live musical experiences or not. High Fidleity wouldn't pressume to know how each person perceives that. It only aims to be faithfull to the ONLY thing the comes closest to a live performance at home. That is the recording.
But really all these debate is moot and academic to me kasi its not the taxonomy that governs my listening enjoyment.
True. You individual hearing biologies and your listening preferences and bias are what this hobby indulges. Your pursuit of sonic nirvana is a personal experiential journey that defines what this hobby is about. Whether you get there through high fidelity or not is up to you. Standards, if any, can only guide you more easily to your quest. It can also dictate sometimes. But you are free to follow or not.
-
Sir Garp,
You got PM.
Cheers.
-
"As close as possible" really depends on your own perception.
Avphile,
I'll take a minor exception to that statement lang. I think the phrase can swing either way and not as implied based merely on perception.
When people make approximations based on perception alone of what is "as close as possible" to a live recording, they are doing so subjectively. Whether that judgement is correct in the sense that the "reproduced waveform is as close as possible to the original waveform" is debatable. But you can also say that reproduced music comes "as close as possible" in fidelity to a live recording depending on mathematical accuracy using those metrics you mentioned. You said it, high fidelity is measurable.
Of course we all know here that numbers do not necessarily translate to a heightened musical experience nor vice versa. I say vice versa because there are those who deduce that their increased musical enjoyment is a result of using a more "hifi" equipment (occassionally guilty of this). And there are those who can't decide based on either the specs or their ears ;D ;D ;D. At the end of the day it boils down to what the numbers say vs. what your ears tell you vs. what your friends tell you. ;D
-
Of course we all know here that numbers do not necessarily translate to a heightened musical experience nor vice versa. I say vice versa because there are those who deduce that their increased musical enjoyment is a result of using a more "hifi" equipment (occassionally guilty of this). And there are those who can't decide based on either the specs or their ears ;D ;D ;D. At the end of the day it boils down to what the numbers say vs. what your ears tell you vs. what your friends tell you. ;D
You're absolutely right.. Numbers have no causal link to a personal experience. And vice versa. Technical specs that define whether the conditions for high fidelity is there or is wanting are great as a technical description of an equipment if it can build up your confidence that it can face up to the challenge of high fidelity. When you start to listen to that gear, those numbers won't mean a thing, unless you have been psychologically conditioned to the powers of suggestion by those numbers. Which can also happen. ;D The subjective can take on a firmer and more compelling hold.
I leave the factors that influence your purchase decisions to your personal call. Whether you are influenced by your friends, your ears or what you read on the internet or the brochure specs, that's your call. Sonic nirvana is supposed to be your goal in this hobby. And pursuing high fidelity is just one road to it. Price, budget, WAF, peer acceptance, pride of ownership, bragging rights, pedigreed or heirloom potential, and factors other than sonic quality can complicate your road or even obscure your objective in this hobby. That's really what makes this hobby anything but static. ;D
-
a rather funny/scary? thing happened past midnite. i was listening to FM biglang may umalulong na aso (ng kapitbahay). i rememberd this thread ;D