Hi-Fi is NOT a subjective hobby.

[Geoffkait]

Hifi is not a subjective hobby that’s for sure but Audio hobby is. Hifi is about lifelike reproduction of instruments and vocals in your home without fatigue but unfortunately main debate here is focused on stage depth, soundstage as it has always been. On the other hand Audio hobby is about pleasing sound. Whichever you’re after is up to you.

Focus all your efforts on expanding and refining the soundstage. All the other parameters will follow., tonality, speed, frequency extension, presence, what have you. I should know, on my modest little headphone system in the past 4 months I went from the “sound is all in my head” to the soundstage is just outside the headphones around 12” to where I am today - the soundstage is 5 to 10 feet in front and all around me and on some CDs 15-20 feet. Hel-lo!!

Hey, kids, don’t try this at home, stay in school.

Free your mind and your ass will follow. - old audiophile axiom

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Not too chicken to change

 

[andromedaaudio]

Why don’t you just build a pair?

Sure if Argonout provides the funds .

I might someday , but why dont you yourself built a pair ??
A joint venture with Ked for example

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Chesky, Telarc, Sheffield, and a handful of others have released recordings with maps of performer placement. A system that images acceptably well will put them in their general places correctly.

This depends also on the mic placement.

 

[Robh3606]

You can measure a difference in composite frequency response between a pair of speakers wired in-phase and out-of-phase, but that measurement will not tell you anything about how well that pair of speakers image.

You don't use a set-up disk with a simple phase test to verify set-up? Why measure anything you can easily hear.

Rob

 

[Carlos269]

You don't use a set-up disk with a simple phase test to verify set-up? Why measure anything you can easily hear.

Rob

Because Rexp asked if “wired-out of phase”could be measured and the measurements’ correlation to how well those speakers would image.

The test discs do not measure, they “indicate” phase alignment.

 

[morricab]

Sure if Argonout provides the funds .

I might someday , but why dont you yourself built a pair ??
A joint venture with Ked for example

I have a DIY full active horn speaker.

 

[Robh3606]

Because Rexp asked if “wired-out of phase”could be measured and the measurements’ correlation to how well those speakers would image.

The test discs do not measure, they “indicate” phase alignment.

What?! The image completely collapses when out of phase. The indication is the total collapse of the central image.

Why would you even use a stereo pair out of phase? Not only that but the bass response will be very anemic as well.

Not sure what is going to happen higher up but the change in bass response can easily be measured with a simple SPL meter.

Rob

 

[Carlos269]

What?! The image completely collapses when out of phase. The indication is the total collapse of the central image.

Why would you even use a stereo pair out of phase? Not only that but the bass response will be very anemic as well.

Not sure what is going to happen higher up but the change in bass response can easily be measured with a simple SPL meter.

Rob

No one is saying that anyone would use a set of speakers with one wired out-of -phase. Go back and read Rexp questions. You are taking this completely out of context. Rexp asked a hypothetical question.

 

[thedudeabides]

An ordinary man has no means of deliverance.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Please clarify if you can. Are you implying some people that posted on this thread are ordinary? And if so, in what way are they ordinary?

 

[treitz3]

This thread is a cryin' shame. Honestly? It's not even worthy of this forum....

IMO...

Tom

 

[Rexp]

This thread is a cryin' shame. Honestly? It's not even worthy of this forum....

IMO...

Tom

Closing down interesting robust debate again, whats your problem?

 

[COF]

Many here think the hobby is purely subjective but there are some objective attributes that one can assign to a music reproduction system. For example, one system can objectively image better than another. Agree/disagree?

The failure in this OP is to not define what is meant by "better imaging."

Some people like really pin point precise imaging. Others like more diffuse imaging. Others in between.

And for those who compare systems to "the real thing" some think precise imaging is more realistic, some think more diffuse imaging is more realistic.

So what do you mean by "better imaging?"

 

[Mcsnare]

The hobby of audiophilia is most certainly subjective.
It always comes down to whether or not the audiophile enjoys listening to music on his or her system. Chasing accuracy beyond a certain subjective point is a fool's errand.
The correct imaging properties of a system are the ones the listener enjoys the most.

 

[Rexp]

The hobby of audiophilia is most certainly subjective.
It always comes down to whether or not the audiophile enjoys listening to music on his or her system. Chasing accuracy beyond a certain subjective point is a fool's errand.
The correct imaging properties of a system are the ones the listener enjoys the most.

Thats an interesting POV coming from a recording /mastering engineer. Did you ever arrange/mic say a group of singers/players a certain way on stage to give a specific spatial effect?

 

[tima]

Hifi is not a subjective hobby that’s for sure but Audio hobby is. Hifi is about lifelike reproduction of instruments and vocals in your home without fatigue but unfortunately main debate here is focused on stage depth, soundstage as it has always been. On the other hand Audio hobby is about pleasing sound. Whichever you’re after is up to you.

As someone who uses the sound of live acoustic music as a reference, I understand the distinction you are drawing between realistic sound and pleasing sound. Imo, gauging realism or believability is an act of judgement grounded in experience. I think you can train your judgement through frequent exposure to live music particularly if you can sit with musicians as they play. Assessment of realism in reproduction can improve, though imo it remains a subjective approach.

 

[tima]

The failure in this OP is to not define what is meant by "better imaging."

Some people like really pin point precise imaging. Others like more diffuse imaging. Others in between.

And for those who compare systems to "the real thing" some think precise imaging is more realistic, some think more diffuse imaging is more realistic.

So what do you mean by "better imaging?"

It seems what he means by 'better imaging' is that the psycho-acoustic image in one's head during reproduction matches or closely matches the arrangement of performers when the recording is made. It can be a matter of degree. The better the match, the better imaging. Or so I speculate.

What is fascinating to me is the emphasis on, or relative importance attached to, having these psycho-acoustic images while listening to our stereos. Granted that the ability to geo-locate is near innate given we have two ears and evolved the ability over time as a survival function. So it does not seem a 'talent' we can turn off at leisure.

But there is so much more to music that is enjoyable regardless of our seeing in our mind where performers are placed. I think part of the emphasis many audiophiles place on this phenomenon is because it is perhaps the most ostensive (pointing) or visual aspect of listening to a stereo. We have a more highly developed vocabulary for things visual -- describing music subjectively is difficult -- so naturally audiophiles tend to talk about imaging because image talk is more accessible to many.

When a composer writes a score he does not have imaging in mind. There are no imaging cues in a score. The composer thinks in terms such as 'tonality', 'dynamics' and 'timing' -- those are the requisite characteristics of music without which sound is not music. To me music is enjoyable regardless of my ability to imagine where performers are located in my mind.

 

[Mcsnare]

Thats an interesting POV coming from a recording /mastering engineer. Did you ever arrange/mic say a group of singers/players a certain way on stage to give a specific spatial effect?

I've always arranged things in the stereo field by intent when recording or mixing. How that was portrayed on whatever monitor system I used is only one representation of that intent. I would never consider that situation the only correct portrayal of my intent. How it sounds on my home system is almost always more enjoyable than how it sounded in the studio, even as it may differ quite a bit.

Recording and mixing engineers generally want to monitor on a lower-resolution system that compels them to "work harder" so that the production translates well on a wide variety of playback scenarios. This is why the common audiophile concept of "hear it like it sounded in the studio" is somewhat of a fallacy, except for a mastering studio. I need to hear a flatter, high-resolution system to do that kind of work.

 

[hopkins]

I've always arranged things in the stereo field by intent when recording or mixing. How that was portrayed on whatever monitor system I used is only one representation of that intent. I would never consider that situation the only correct portrayal of my intent. How it sounds on my home system is almost always more enjoyable than how it sounded in the studio, even as it may differ quite a bit.

Recording and mixing engineers generally want to monitor on a lower-resolution system that compels them to "work harder" so that the production translates well on a wide variety of playback scenarios. This is why the common audiophile concept of "hear it like it sounded in the studio" is somewhat of a fallacy, except for a mastering studio. I need to hear a flatter, high-resolution system to do that kind of work.

Slightly off topic, but do you check mono compatibility when you produce your material?

 

[morricab]

It seems what he means by 'better imaging' is that the psycho-acoustic image in one's head during reproduction matches or closely matches the arrangement of performers when the recording is made. It can be a matter of degree. The better the match, the better imaging. Or so I speculate.

What is fascinating to me is the emphasis on, or relative importance attached to, having these psycho-acoustic images while listening to our stereos. Granted that the ability to geo-locate is near innate given we have two ears and evolved the ability over time as a survival function. So it does not seem a 'talent' we can turn off at leisure.

But there is so much more to music that is enjoyable regardless of our seeing in our mind where performers are placed. I think part of the emphasis many audiophiles place on this phenomenon is because it is perhaps the most ostensive (pointing) or visual aspect of listening to a stereo. We have a more highly developed vocabulary for things visual -- describing music subjectively is difficult -- so naturally audiophiles tend to talk about imaging because image talk is more accessible to many.

When a composer writes a score he does not have imaging in mind. There are no imaging cues in a score. The composer thinks in terms such as 'tonality', 'dynamics' and 'timing' -- those are the requisite characteristics of music without which sound is not music. To me music is enjoyable regardless of my ability to imagine where performers are located in my mind.

You don't think the arrangement of the instruments in an orchestra is important to the composer? Clearly there was an evolution of having higher pitched instruments on the left, the lower toned instruments on the right and horns and percussion in the back. I would be surprised if this arrangement and the mental image it creates, when listening both live and on recordings, is not being considered by the composer and integrated into their vision of the sound that the audience hears.

 

[hopkins]

You don't think the arrangement of the instruments in an orchestra is important to the composer? Clearly there was an evolution of having higher pitched instruments on the left, the lower toned instruments on the right and horns and percussion in the back. I would be surprised if this arrangement and the mental image it creates, when listening both live and on recordings, is not being considered by the composer and integrated into their vision of the sound that the audience hears.

I am not a specialist of classical music, but if I think of this in relation to "big band jazz", and someone like Ellington, I would be curious to learn what "scholars" have to say about this. My initial thought is that the layout of the various instruments may not have changed much, and the primary consideration was the relative loudness of each section and instrument (at least initially when a single microphone was being used).