Last night I went to a very nice house concert in a house in one of the nicest parts of Zürich. The house was of modern design and the room for concert was fairly large at about 6 x 10 meters (20 x 33 feet) with high ceilings. THe concert was a duo with two cellos. Both cellists were professionals from the Tonhalle Orchestra and so quite skilled if not at the uppermost levels of the soloist world. The pieces ranged from largely unknown to me to a final piece that was quite demanding from Paganinni (not sure if it was originally written for cello or transcripted).
Anyway, my wife and I sat in the front row, which was only 2.5 meters or so from the performers themselves but slightly "off-axis" from the center. The music ranged from light and playful to "hard and heavy" or deeply romantic. So, quite a wide variety of sound and styles and technical diffculty. It was clear that some of the pieces required an extreme amount of concentration whereas other pieces they were able to feed off of each other in a playful manner. Really great stuff!
Now, there were two really deep take home audiophile messages from this concert that had nothing to do with the musicians playing or the compositions but really the sound itself and the impact that sound created.
1) The tone of the two instruments was FAR richer sounding than 99% of the high end systems I have heard, either at people's homes or shows. This was driven home to me more than usual because we were sitting so close (I could easily hear the breathing of the cellist closeest to us). You expect a certain richness in a big hall when you sit in the middle to the back of the hall due to absoprtion of high frequencies. There was none of that here.
The other important point about tone was the disctinct and laughably easy differentiation between the two performers cellos. Now, this might also have to do with how they played their instruments but it seemed to be more the instrument (or bow) themselves. What do I mean? The cellist closest to us (by closer I mean about 50-75 cm closer) had a warmer tone that was also somehow less complex and more midrange centered. It also projected a bit more but was more tonally homogeneous and therefore somewhat less interesting. The other cello (ist) had more growl in the low notes with complex overtones in the lower strings and likewise a bit more "bite" in the upper frequencies, which were again more complex. It gave a more "hear into" quality on her solos. Mids were a bit less projected but still more interesting from the complexity of the tone.
Resolution was of course the real thing. Every nuance of their playing revealed, every squeak, squeal, fingering etc. all there without hardness.
This level of tonal differentiation is VERY difficult to get right with hifi. I have never heard a system with a SS amp get it right...ever. Very few tube systems get it right either though and none of the push/pull type from what I have heard so far.
So, next time you hear someone say that an all tube system sounds too rich for reality don't believe them in most cases because the reality for real instruments in a real space IS rich and harmonically complex...even up close where you get more high frequency "bite" to the sound. The problem with most tube systems is that the tonal richness often comes at the price of transparency and resolution of details. They get tone right but lose the nuance.
2) The presence of the music was THERE! It was in your lap, in your face and then fading back to the performers during quiet passages. It lived and breathed. It didn't sit back in space, it invaded your space but with all the richness and resolution without hardness described above. This palpability is nearly unprecedented in hifi playback. Of course you need a recording that is intimate (most small ensemble recordings are rather made this way). A big orchestra recording is often going to have a more distant perspective...just like when you sit mid-hall.
Small ensembles in the spaces they were designed for can generate powerful waves of music and it is immersive and present in the room with you. It is more visceral than going to a big concert I have found, unless you sit very close as well to the orchestra. For example, I was at a concert the week before at Tonhalle to hear Mussorgsky "Pictures at an Exhibition" and we sat in the mid-back of the hall. It was powerful sounding and moving but from a more distant perspective. The horns did not land in your lap.
I have heard very few systems that do the presence I heard last night even remotely close to that live performance. The closest thing it reminded me of was the Schubert Festival in London where we heard quartet and quintet in the home of a London doctor. That was equally visceral.
This presence is one of the things that horns seem to do better than dynamic speakers. Whether it is the sensitivity or the directivity of the speakers it is hard to say...probably a comination of these and other factors. The presence I heard last night I have never heard with a dynamic speaker but I did hear it from time to time with big electrostats. I have also never heard it with a system driven with SS electronics...they tend to paint a more distant perspective of the soundfield and lack the dynamic bursts to capture that pulsing sound.
It seems to me now that in some ways, there are many systems that have even more trouble getting this presence, dynamic "breathing" and tone right of a small, two instrument, ensemble than do to recreate a nice panoramic orchestral sound (not a lifelike SPL mind you). It is severe even because most fall down on both the tone and differentiation of tone as well as the presence and microdynamics. Most are flat and gray compared to what I heard sitting 2-3 meters from the performers.
I have seen many people argue that SETs make an unrealistic sound in terms of tone and "projection" of the sound...artifacts and distortion some people say. And yet, they get closer to the sound I heard yesterday (coupled with horns in particular) live than any other technology I have heard. I have laid out technical reasons why but the best is just listening and realizing what the real deal sounds like and which technology gets us closer to that.
Anyway, my wife and I sat in the front row, which was only 2.5 meters or so from the performers themselves but slightly "off-axis" from the center. The music ranged from light and playful to "hard and heavy" or deeply romantic. So, quite a wide variety of sound and styles and technical diffculty. It was clear that some of the pieces required an extreme amount of concentration whereas other pieces they were able to feed off of each other in a playful manner. Really great stuff!
Now, there were two really deep take home audiophile messages from this concert that had nothing to do with the musicians playing or the compositions but really the sound itself and the impact that sound created.
1) The tone of the two instruments was FAR richer sounding than 99% of the high end systems I have heard, either at people's homes or shows. This was driven home to me more than usual because we were sitting so close (I could easily hear the breathing of the cellist closeest to us). You expect a certain richness in a big hall when you sit in the middle to the back of the hall due to absoprtion of high frequencies. There was none of that here.
The other important point about tone was the disctinct and laughably easy differentiation between the two performers cellos. Now, this might also have to do with how they played their instruments but it seemed to be more the instrument (or bow) themselves. What do I mean? The cellist closest to us (by closer I mean about 50-75 cm closer) had a warmer tone that was also somehow less complex and more midrange centered. It also projected a bit more but was more tonally homogeneous and therefore somewhat less interesting. The other cello (ist) had more growl in the low notes with complex overtones in the lower strings and likewise a bit more "bite" in the upper frequencies, which were again more complex. It gave a more "hear into" quality on her solos. Mids were a bit less projected but still more interesting from the complexity of the tone.
Resolution was of course the real thing. Every nuance of their playing revealed, every squeak, squeal, fingering etc. all there without hardness.
This level of tonal differentiation is VERY difficult to get right with hifi. I have never heard a system with a SS amp get it right...ever. Very few tube systems get it right either though and none of the push/pull type from what I have heard so far.
So, next time you hear someone say that an all tube system sounds too rich for reality don't believe them in most cases because the reality for real instruments in a real space IS rich and harmonically complex...even up close where you get more high frequency "bite" to the sound. The problem with most tube systems is that the tonal richness often comes at the price of transparency and resolution of details. They get tone right but lose the nuance.
2) The presence of the music was THERE! It was in your lap, in your face and then fading back to the performers during quiet passages. It lived and breathed. It didn't sit back in space, it invaded your space but with all the richness and resolution without hardness described above. This palpability is nearly unprecedented in hifi playback. Of course you need a recording that is intimate (most small ensemble recordings are rather made this way). A big orchestra recording is often going to have a more distant perspective...just like when you sit mid-hall.
Small ensembles in the spaces they were designed for can generate powerful waves of music and it is immersive and present in the room with you. It is more visceral than going to a big concert I have found, unless you sit very close as well to the orchestra. For example, I was at a concert the week before at Tonhalle to hear Mussorgsky "Pictures at an Exhibition" and we sat in the mid-back of the hall. It was powerful sounding and moving but from a more distant perspective. The horns did not land in your lap.
I have heard very few systems that do the presence I heard last night even remotely close to that live performance. The closest thing it reminded me of was the Schubert Festival in London where we heard quartet and quintet in the home of a London doctor. That was equally visceral.
This presence is one of the things that horns seem to do better than dynamic speakers. Whether it is the sensitivity or the directivity of the speakers it is hard to say...probably a comination of these and other factors. The presence I heard last night I have never heard with a dynamic speaker but I did hear it from time to time with big electrostats. I have also never heard it with a system driven with SS electronics...they tend to paint a more distant perspective of the soundfield and lack the dynamic bursts to capture that pulsing sound.
It seems to me now that in some ways, there are many systems that have even more trouble getting this presence, dynamic "breathing" and tone right of a small, two instrument, ensemble than do to recreate a nice panoramic orchestral sound (not a lifelike SPL mind you). It is severe even because most fall down on both the tone and differentiation of tone as well as the presence and microdynamics. Most are flat and gray compared to what I heard sitting 2-3 meters from the performers.
I have seen many people argue that SETs make an unrealistic sound in terms of tone and "projection" of the sound...artifacts and distortion some people say. And yet, they get closer to the sound I heard yesterday (coupled with horns in particular) live than any other technology I have heard. I have laid out technical reasons why but the best is just listening and realizing what the real deal sounds like and which technology gets us closer to that.
Last edited by a moderator:
