The focus and air lie


There always have been some kind of fashion in the way a system sounds and since a few years it seems that more and more people are looking for details, air and pinpoint focus / soundstaging.
There's a lot of components, accessories and speakers designed to fill full that demand... Halcro, dCS, Esoteric, Nordost, BW, GamuT are some examples.

This sound does NOT exist in real life, when you're at a concert the sound is full not airy, the soundstage exist of course but it's definitely not as focused as many of the systems you can hear in the hifi shops, it just fill the room.

To get that focus and air hifi components cheats, it's all in the meds and high meds, a bit less meds, a bit more high meds and you get the details, the air, the focus BUT you loose timbral accuracy, fullness.
It's evident for someone accustomed to unamplified concert that a lot of systems are lean and far from sounding real.

Those systems are also very picky about recordings : good recordings will be ok but everything else will be more difficult...
That's a shame because a hifi system should be able to trasmit music soul even on bad recording.
In 2008 this is a very rare quality.

So why does this happened ?

Did audiophiles stopped to listen unamplified music and lost contact with the real thing ?

Is it easier for shops to sell components that sounds so "detailled and impressive" during their 30mins or 1 hour demo ?
ndeslions
Ndeslions: I agree that the sound of most systems is not the same as a live concert. I would extend that proposition to include all systems. Listening to reproduced music in private is not the same thing as listening to live music in a concert hall for a host of reasons - acoustic as well as psychological.

If one wants to hear live music in a concert hall, one must listen to live music in a concert hall. Included in that experience is the person next to you rusting his or her program from time to time and the guy behind you coughing every now and then - all part of the sound. Not to mention the spontanaity of the event. There are advantages and disadvantages in both reproduced sound experienced with no distractions at user controlled volumes that can be listened to repetitively, and a live performance - but these two ways of enjoying music are fundamentally different.

As to sound "quality" of a recording - that is only a part of experiencing music. Some of the recordings that I find to be the best interpretations of a piece were made from radio broadcasts in the 1940's and 50's or otherwise poor recordings- the sound quality is not great but the interpretation can be heard regardless. For example - Beethoven's 9 by Vanska recently released- great sound, dead interpretation; Beethoven's 9 by Furtwangler in Berlin during the war - poor sound, great interpretation. Each has its place.
I also agree with Mrtennis' point about music.

The MUSIC is in your head. As he says, even a clock radio will convey that, and the emotional connection to the piece. That's why although the vast majority of people have a deep relationship to music, they are happy enough with the stereo in their cars, those glorified boomboxes that are passed off as systems today, or going to a concert in a club or stadium where the sound is abysmal.

We are the lunatic fringe who demand to get as close as humanly possible through electronics because of our passion, stupidity, etc.
Mrt/Trel, right on the money.
What's funny/sad is that there is a body of audiophools who assume they are more passionate about music than the dude jamming on an iPod (plain old snobbery)...in any event who cares. We all listen differently, and as Shad pointed out he likes listening piecewise to determine the elements that constitute the 'sound'. Me, I like hitting play and not thinking, but just content to be immersed in a wall of sound.
Lately, however, i've been really bent and upset with the approach i've taken over the years, that of the "purist". I've since discovered DEQ/DRC and my eyes/ears have been opened. Played out, are my days (of) obsessing about power cords, subtle differences among line level "neutral" preamps, or interconnect minutia. I'm so burned out by this approach I almost ditched it all. These tiny "voicing" inflections PALE in comparison to the real changes (hugely positive) I've been experiencing with DSP equalisation. Sorry if I seem like i'm shouting, but this is way too cool and important to not share. If this approach is embraced by more of us it will gain traction. There are a few experienced audiphiles here that have embraced this technology already. I would love to see a whole new category on audiogon about this. In turn, of course, we will generate new details ( do i have the optimal filter functions, what filter lengths are best, how clean was the phantom power supply to my recording mic) to feed our obsession -lol
Happy trails



if you are focused upon accuracy of reproduction, than i would agree with you. however, much of the purpose of the music is transmitted by means of a radio

If you are referring to my post then you are incorrect. I am not trying to hear "accuracy". As accuracy for accuracy sake has absolutely no value to me.

I am actually trying to hear the notes, accents and timing of each individual musician - to hear exactly what they are doing.

Between a radio and a high end system there is complete night and day in being able to hear what is actually going on.
hi shadorne:

if you are concerned with the details of the presentation of the music, you may miss the broader purpose or communication of the music, like the contrast between a forest and the trees.

it seems that you are more interested in the parts than the whole.

a rado or other low resolution medium will give you the forest and the important components of the music. as you indicate, you will not be able to pursue your goal listening to a radio.

by the way, if a stereo system is sufficiently colored you will not attain your goal. i would think that accuracy would be important to you.