|
|
|
I've often heard wish-washy language when used to describe the preferred sound of a hi-fi system. So, here is a little list of definitely definable, audible things that let me know I have a good system (along with the reasons I think I get good results). Please add your own to educate and inform!
...
1. When artistes say the "S" sound, it doesn't sound liek a hissing snake (as is a typical example of a digital artefact, i believe), but like a natural, "S" sound. I give my source the credit for this.
2. Human voices sound natural. I mean, excitingly so. Thank you, Tannoy for DC technology.
3. Bass is very tight and dynamic - combination of amp, and subwoofer. And, to a lesser extent, the speakers (because I am talking specifically about sub-80Hz bass) which is channelled through my sub.
|
|
|
Post by krisjan July 11, 2008 (2 of 18)
|
|
The only truly "definable" things are the things you can measure - like frequency response, distortion, etc. Those measurements, however, only tell part of the audio story. For me, the real test is does the system reproduce acoustic instruments properly. For that you need a trained ear (i.e. you have to regularly hear acoustic instruments) to make proper judgements. The more familiar you are with the real thing, the better you will be at discerning when a music system is reprodicing it properly. You can disregard almost all studio-recorded rock/pop music from this because the electronic instruments can be processed to an extent that no one but the original record producer or track mixer really knows how it sounds in relation to what was recorded in the studio - the average consumer would have no idea of what is "right". If you have no clue what the "reference" sounded like, you can't properly make any judgements about its reproduction in a music system. I'm sure the rock 'n rollers here will object but really there is no objective way to use such material to make sound evaluations. I could go on but I'll stop here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ideal way to judge the sound of any system is to listen to acoustic (non-amplified) instruments and voices, recorded in a good hall, then attend a performance (say, at Metropolitan Opera, or, Symphony Hall in Boston), and find CD's, or better yet, SACD's, recorded there. Acoustic memory is short, but after a while you'll recognize whether or not you're close to the sound of a live performance in that space. If you are, your system is probably doing a good job of faithfully reproducing whatever you play through it. As a bonus, attending live performances in a particularly nice form of "research".
As far as "golden ear" audio reviewers go, they have a stake in hearing all kinds of subtleties that probably aren't really there, to justify the obscene prices coming from so-called hi-end manufacturers and their jobs (it's no coincidence that they're scared to death of "double blind" comparisons, which even hi-end speaker manufacturers, such as Wilson Audio, use in developing their products).
Here's an example of what I mean: There's a hi-end dealer in Connecticut who lent a customer a pair of Wilson Sofia loudspeakers, which he kept for over a month. When I asked him when why he's had it so long, he told me the customer is trying to convince himself he likes the way it sounds. Because the "golden ears" gave the Sofia's rave reviews, they must be right and what his ears are telling him, must be wrong.
Forget them, they'll end up costing you a lot of money (besides they're not the ones who are going to listen to your system), and trust your own ears and judgment.
Happy listening.
|
|
|
Post by pgmdir July 11, 2008 (4 of 18)
|
|
Both Krisjan and Cheribino are correct….
Definable means measurable, but in the long run it’s your own ears and brain that will tell you. A system which does the best job of disappearing when playing your favorite music--- that would be my boiled-down response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
pgmdir said:
Both Krisjan and Cheribino are correct….
Definable means measurable, but in the long run it’s your own ears and brain that will tell you. A system which does the best job of disappearing when playing your favorite music--- that would be my boiled-down response.
I agree with everything said so far. The simplest definition of an excellent audio system is a system that its owner really enjoys listening to.
To me, it's sound that is unforced and natural, which is a very subjective way of saying your ears don't fatigue at reasonable volume levels while listening to an entire album. Sound lacks artificial coloration, acoustic instruments have presence with air around them, and the sound is round and full as opposed to thin and shrill (all conditions are recording dependent too). Put another way, an excellent audio system should do no harm to a wonderful recording.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sacd_fan_2007 said:
I agree with everything said so far. The simplest definition of an excellent audio system is a system that its owner really enjoys listening to.
That's fine for the owner. But would I want to own it? Would I want to recommend it to a friend?
To answer those questions I would have to listen to it extensively myself. I think the question being asked here (may be impossible to answer) is: "Are there parameters by which one can judge a system, and using English words, communicate how the system in question reaches that level of excellence wherein it seems to become transparent or "to disappear""?
One parameter I have more or recently discovered is the ability to play LOUD, without having all those negative attributes of "loud hi fi". In other words, be able to duplicate triple forte levels - without a hardening of the treble or incurring a feeling of "congestion" - of the sound in a good concert hall. Lots of otherwise fine sounding systems really fall down on that one - including my own, depending how on hard I push it.
One of the attractions of chamber music I suppose is not having your itty bitty little speakers needing to deal with the roar of a full orchestra augmented by the low bass notes from a concert organ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another attribute is to reproduce the "sense of scale" of an acoustic environment whether the music is loud or soft. PentaTone, Channel Classics, Harmonia Mundi, BIS and several other small labels seem to excel in that with their Multi-channel surround recordings. They do that if your system is properly set up and itself is "up to the job".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another reason why recommendations of the hi end audio press, escpecially for expensive items, should be taken with a grain of salt, is that they receive huge discounts on anything they want, and don't pay anything near the price you'll have to pay. For example, in 1980 I wanted to by a good pair of loudspeakers. After extensive listening, I decided on the ADS L810's. List price was $850 per pair, plus $56.00 for the matching stands. The total price, with sales tax would have cost $938. A close friend who was an accountant, had a client who was prominent in home audio (he was not in retail, nor did he work for ADS). He told him that he could get any piece of audio equipment at a steep discount. He ordered the 810's (which had to be delivered in his name), and they arrived at my door, directly from ADS, in 3 weeks. Through him I paid a total of $326 for both the speakers and the stands, with no sales tax or shipping. That's a 65% savings. Now, the audio press may not receive that large a discount on every piece of equipment, but what they do received is considerable, and makes the, "I loved it so much, I bought the review sample" a less impressive endorsement.
By the way, 28 years on, I still have the ADS 810's in my system. The best $326 I ever spent on my system.
|
|
|
Post by stvnharr July 11, 2008 (9 of 18)
|
|
Windsurfer said:
One parameter I have more or recently discovered is the ability to play LOUD, without having all those negative attributes of "loud hi fi". In other words, be able to duplicate triple forte levels - without a hardening of the treble or incurring a feeling of "congestion" - of the sound in a good concert hall. Lots of otherwise fine sounding systems really fall down on that one - including my own, depending how on hard I push it.
Bruce,
The ability of a music system to play quietly while still hearing everything is a far better indicator of quality than playing loud, especially in classical music playback. This is quite the opposite of your statement.
When you hear a concert in the concert hall, you hear everything, all the little sound details, harmonics, just everything. And it all sounds natural and you never pay the slightest attention to that, but just to the music.
All, or at least most all, of this information will be on a recording, especially an sacd.
In electronic playback first the disc player has to retrieve all the information, then the amplifier has to be able to amplify all this information, and lastly the loudspeaker has to be able to reproduce this.
Most home systems fall short in this, though they may indeed sound quite good to the listener.
If the system is truly retrieving most of the information and passing it on thru the system, you DON'T have to turn it up to hear it. If you have to turn it up to hear it, you're not going to hear it because it isn't there. "It" meaning the low level details of the music.
ALL systems can play loud. But most systems also have a lot of distortion when they are playing loud. "Good loud" just means that the amplifier is not adding too much distortion to the music.
|
|
|
Post by Johnno July 11, 2008 (10 of 18)
|
|
As one who loves both "serious" music (I hate the term 'classical' but the term 'serious' is little better) and some types of rock, I find there are two issues when it comes to assessing one's audio equipment.
(a) As I am a regular concert-goer, can I honestly say that my equipment has the ability to convey the "real thing" to me on a regular basis? Can I close my eyes or listen in a darkened room and genuinely believe I am being transported to a concert hall?
(b) If I'm listening to rock music that has been recorded with some care, can I become emotionally involved in that music even though I might have little idea how it actualy sounded in the recording studio?
I agree with Steven when he talks about low level detail. This, I believe, is a vital key when asessing the quality of one's equipment -- the ability to be able to hear into the music when some of the musical sound levels are very low. This is where SACD scores over other formats.
|
|
