Topic: Are your speakers analytical/hyperdetailed? List them here!

[Superman]

early 30s ba kamo??? are you sure?? hehehe! peace po!

[EB]

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

[Signal2Noise]

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)

[EB]

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)

[aHobbit]

... i define nyo muna ang ibig sabihin ng Analytical

mathematician?   

   

[Kevlar]

... 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...  hehehe!

- Kevlar

[av_phile1]

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. 

[aHobbit]

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?     

[EB]

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

[Kevlar]

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. 

This is where we completely disagree. 
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'  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
 

[av_phile1]

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. 

[bumblebee]

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

[aHobbit]

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! 

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! 

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!  ) - I just dont know whether somebody (avphile1 or kevlar        ) 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 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'  )

[Kevlar]

aHobbit,

Let me explain further... 
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

[bumblebee]

Not all live performances are pleasing to the ear. And Hi-Fi need not be pleasing or euphonic or musical. But it can be.

[slayer]

Ah basta... i know someone who owns a roth howling to Patricia Barber's songs! 

[aHobbit]

aHobbit,

Let me explain further... 
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! 

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!!!      ) - 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!!!     

Pasko (bonus) na po ... benta na kayo mura gears so we can buy cheap!!!     

[av_phile1]

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!  ) - I just dont know whether somebody (avphile1 or kevlar        ) 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 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'  )

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.  

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.   

[av_phile1]

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!!!      ) - 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!!!     

Pasko (bonus) na po ... benta na kayo mura gears so we can buy cheap!!!     

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. 

[av_phile1]

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. 

[av_phile1]

"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/

[EB]

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 

[av_phile1]

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

[hattori_hanzo]

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.   

[EB]

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. 

[bumblebee]

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).

[Kevlar]

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!!!      ) - 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!!!     

aHobbit,

Excellent! You got my point!
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

[av_phile1]

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. 

[av_phile1]

aHobbit,

Excellent! You got my point!
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. 

[EB]

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.