2. speakers
  3. 1221383247

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
mapman's avatar
mapman
15,679 posts
 
"That means that you should choose a seat in the 1st row of the balcony, with no ceiling or second balcony above yours. You will find these seats to be absolute magic and will give you a memorable performance in sound quality"

I have had some of the best experiences at the symphony in seats like these.

In a good venue, like the Meyerhoff in Baltimore, these can be forward and to the side of the stage and not necessarily dead center. The perspective on the performance will be different but the sound still top notch.
shadorne's avatar
shadorne
7,333 posts
 
I like nice looking things as much as the next guy, but the irony is that good looks is not required for good sound though many may equate the two.

To quote the fab four, "What do you see when you turn out the light?"
mrtennis
3,295 posts
 
hi cdc:

i have answered this question already. i will answer it again, as it gets at the purpose for having a stereo system.

there is music and sound.

an expensive stereo system provides the opportunity to appreciate the sounds of instruments--their timbre, for example. it provides an opportunity to appreciate the qualities that audiophiles value highly, such as resolution and soundstage.

however, the ability to benefit from listening to music does not depend upon its sound quality. there are articles in journals which corroborate my assertion.

therefore, a low resolution meedium is sufficient for enjoying music and a high resolution medium is necessary to minimze errors in the transmission of sound.

i hope i have answered your question.
wadav
80 posts
 
I say it depends on what you are listening too. R&B(which I listen too)in a jazz club atmosphere sounds real similar to what I am able to recreate at my home. It depends on what your standard of live music is. Go get a MTV unplugged CD set and listen,you will be surprised in a top flight system with lights off at night how you can recreate that event.

So again,it depends on the venue you are using as a standard.
thomp9015
79 posts
 
ah, it's all relative i suppose. when i've been in graduate school i always found that those from developing countries listening to boom boxes always seemed to enjoy music, be transported, deeply affected, etc., more than their spoiled first world counterparts. i have no doubt that better and better speakers do not mean those listening to them appreciate music any more, often less, than those with far less. perhaps having less, having to struggle, face REAL adversity, makes good music (any art form really), not good sound, that much more enriching. if one can see that art is often the product of a sort of pain or angst, longing, alientation, etc., then it would make sense that cultures in which oppression is commonplace would relate more to art than those of us for whom music (art) is merely yet another leisure activity. frankly i find the notion that the genuine appreciation of music rests on one's income/technological advancement disturbingly flawed and nonsensical on its face, a real non-starter.
More to discover