Would you sacrifice high end audio resolution for more "naturalness" and "humanness"?

[thedudeabides]

Are you willing to sacrifice a bit of detail resolution for more naturalness and humanness?

caesar,

With all due respect, I have no idea what you mean with those two words.

Seems like this could lead to our favorite over discussed / beat to death topic but I hope not.

In any event, have fun and good luck.

Best,

GG

 

[bryede]

Gentlemen, I appreciate the participation.

As one example: put a vintage tube system with an old pair Quads, and put on a regular CD, which is not necessarily a great recording. Then play the same recording on a modern speaker driven by an SS amp and a modern high resolving speaker. The latter could sound quite harsh.

What improvements have we really gotten in the last 25 years?

There are some harsh sounding CDs. In fact, one of my biggest pet-peeves is that mastering seemed to go straight downhill once CD took over. But, a system that can make these CDs sound smooth would be anything but accurate. Maybe the best place for that feature would be in the conversion and output stages of a CD player.

As far as what improvements have we gotten, there really is very little that's revolutionary in audio. Most of it is just reworkings of existing ideas. The biggest gains are probably in speaker materials and analysis. We have some low cost speakers with performance unlike almost anything in their class from 25 years ago. Next, I'd list the gains in digital conversion and filtering. In the end, though, you still need an engineer who can hear well enough to know when he's done.

 

[Barry2013]

Maybe it's just my perception, but it seems that in the last 25 years we have been hearing a lot about greater detail retrieval of gear but less about how humans can come alive in our rooms.

In my opinion, this could be one of the main reasons people are not upgrading. Yes, this is a solitary hobby in a socially connected, mobile world, but IMHO, most people's "older" gear sounds very natural to them.
I do think you have raised a valid issue but maybe the question hasn't quite captured it.
First though I am sure that if cost is not a limiting issue and you get the right system synergy and listening environment you ought to be able to get the best of all worlds, but for the vast majority there will be limitations.
In my experience. reinforced by the recent Munich show, too greater emphasis on resolution can result in the sound losing its emotional and communicative sound and the natural sound of live music.Devialet IMO falls into that category and when I listened recently to a Koda preamp which was then replaced by an Aesthetix the latter's sound to my ears was far more real and involving.
What I particularly like about my Vitus SIA 025/DCS Puccini and word clock/ YG Carmels is that the sound is well resolved, sounds natural and communicates emotions. The bass is not as deep as with a larger speaker but is very good quality.
Maybe there is a parallel with the long running debate on the relative merits of digital and analogue sound but if the musical reproduction doesn't sound natural and doesn't communicate emotions then that rather defeats the objective of the purchases. Others I have spoken to have agreed but tastes can and do differ.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

There are some harsh sounding CDs. In fact, one of my biggest pet-peeves is that mastering seemed to go straight downhill once CD took over. But, a system that can make these CDs sound smooth would be anything but accurate. Maybe the best place for that feature would be in the conversion and output stages of a CD player.

It was also a time when the labels, who were originally attracted by the diversity and quality of the music being created, focused on putting out product to improve their bottom line.

 

[bryede]

It was also a time when the labels, who were originally attracted by the diversity and quality of the music being created, focused on putting out product to improve their bottom line.

I also blame the fact that technology eventually put portable systems in the hands of every kid out there and suddenly the biggest market segment didn't care about quality at all.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I also blame the fact that technology eventually put portable systems in the hands of every kid out there and suddenly the biggest market segment didn't care about quality at all.

Yep. That as well. It continues today as music is about accessibility, not quality.

 

[Mosin]

If you really do have resolution, you will also have 'naturalness and humanness'.

The reality though is that you always have resolution accompanied by some form of distortion- and its the distortions we audiophiles like to fight over.

True. The only thing I would add is that some supposedly "high resolution" systems leave out information that isn't necessarily associated with the generally accepted perception of detail. That's why we sometimes hear the words "detailed" and "dry" in the same sentence, for example. That would be a detailed system that lacks naturalness, correct? I submit that "detailed" isn't always detailed. It all goes to the definition of the word, I suppose.

 

[RogerD]

True. The only thing I would add is that some supposedly "high resolution" systems leave out information that isn't necessarily associated with the generally accepted perception of detail. That's why we sometimes hear the words "detailed" and "dry" in the same sentence, for example. That would be a detailed system that lacks naturalness, correct? I submit that "detailed" isn't always detailed. It all goes to the definition of the word, I suppose.

If you truly have a high resolution system which is very low distortion and noise and your speakers are very coherent with a flat frequency response what info would not be produced? You would be missing information if the source material is flawed or the information could be masked by either residual noise or distortion,because it always can be better. A high resolution system by just that description should be capable of very good reproduction. Now nuance is part of detail and that's what the true test is,because noise creates a level of hash or grunge,which will defineatley mask the nuance.

And I might add a system that is very nuanced should have all the markers that go along,great clarity,dynamics,speed,naturalness,soundstage,effortless,ect.

 

[Mosin]

If you truly have a high resolution system which is very low distortion and noise and your speakers are very coherent with a flat frequency response what info would not be produced? <snip>

One example that comes to mind is that a supposedly high resolution turntable can miss information by having extremely small speed errors. The result is that a very slight smear will cause an audible loss of detail without actually presenting itself as being smeared. I don't know how many turntables suffer from this problem, but a lot of them. I suppose it is as you say, nuance. It's easier to demonstrate than describe.

 

[esldude]

Gentlemen, I appreciate the participation.

As one example: put a vintage tube system with an old pair Quads, and put on a regular CD, which is not necessarily a great recording. Then play the same recording on a modern speaker driven by an SS amp and a modern high resolving speaker. The latter could sound quite harsh.

What improvements have we really gotten in the last 25 years?

I think you have offered yet another false choice here. At least through the midrange old Quads were highly resolving. Run of the mill old tube gear was a softening, smoothing sound, with some false additives that seem to enhance at least some music. Some of the top old tube gear wasn't so smoothing and softening if used within its power limitations. The old Quad's would show that, and also can sound very good with moderate powered quality SS amps. So I think I get what two sound types you are trying to describe, but much of it is something of a fantasy than a reality.

The improvements we have gotten are consistency, low distortion, convenience, power, and better frequency response both flatter and wider. If that shows a recording to be not only not great, but harsh one can choose a colored sound that might be better for such or choose better recordings. Or choose to use EQ for those problem recordings. Which sort of lets you have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think you have offered yet another false choice here. At least through the midrange old Quads were highly resolving. Run of the mill old tube gear was a softening, smoothing sound, with some false additives that seem to enhance at least some music. Some of the top old tube gear wasn't so smoothing and softening if used within its power limitations. The old Quad's would show that, and also can sound very good with moderate powered quality SS amps. So I think I get what two sound types you are trying to describe, but much of it is something of a fantasy than a reality.

The improvements we have gotten are consistency, low distortion, convenience, power, and better frequency response both flatter and wider. If that shows a recording to be not only not great, but harsh one can choose a colored sound that might be better for such or choose better recordings. Or choose to use EQ for those problem recordings. Which sort of lets you have your cake and eat it too.

We have a winner!

 

[Atmasphere]

Gentlemen, I appreciate the participation.

As one example: put a vintage tube system with an old pair Quads, and put on a regular CD, which is not necessarily a great recording. Then play the same recording on a modern speaker driven by an SS amp and a modern high resolving speaker. The latter could sound quite harsh.

What improvements have we really gotten in the last 25 years?

There are many, but outside the scope of this thread without total derailment. Start a new thread?

 

[microstrip]

(...) The improvements we have gotten are consistency, low distortion, convenience, power, and better frequency response both flatter and wider (...) .

IMHO there are many more improvements than just those you list. The most important are due to the articulation of technical aspects with the psychoacoustics of stereo sound reproduction. BTW which Quad's are you addressing? The meaning of your post can vary a lot if they are ESL57 or ESL63 type.

 

[esldude]

IMHO there are many more improvements than just those you list. The most important are due to the articulation of technical aspects with the psychoacoustics of stereo sound reproduction. BTW which Quad's are you addressing? The meaning of your post can vary a lot if they are ESL57 or ESL63 type.

I took the old Quads to be the 57's. I have owned both 57's and 63's. I have heard them in a number of locations and with a long list of gear old, new, ss, and tube.

My list of course wasn't meant to be complete, but those I listed are nearly universal and most important in my opinion.

 

[caesar]

There are many, but outside the scope of this thread without total derailment. Start a new thread?

Good idea. Just did.

 

[caesar]

Gentlemen,

I know many disagree with me, which is great - since this is a discussion forum for a hobby - but my contention is that there is a lot of gear with a lot more detail, but not necessarily more "naturalness". It's as if we have really outstanding engineers designing gear and really outstanding parts, but those engineers lack a great ear for music.



A Question for those who love detail: why do you listen to speakers? Why not just put on your headphones and get details galore?

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Gentlemen,

I know many disagree with me, which is great - since this is a discussion forum for a hobby - but my contention is that there is a lot of gear with a lot more detail, but not necessarily more "naturalness". It's as if we have really outstanding engineers designing gear and really outstanding parts, but those engineers lack a great ear for music.



A Question for those who love detail: why do you listen to speakers? Why not just put on your headphones and get details galore?

Can you elaborate on this in your own words as to what "naturalness" is?

 

[caesar]

Can you elaborate on this in your own words as to what "naturalness" is?

Simply put, the detail is there, but it is part of the musical whole rather than standing on its own and obfuscating the musical whole.

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

Simply put, the detail is there, but it is part of the musical whole rather than standing on its own and obfuscating the musical whole.

That was simply put? I think I'm more confused now. How about a real world example?

 

[microstrip]

Simply put, the detail is there, but it is part of the musical whole rather than standing on its own and obfuscating the musical whole.

Very good explanation. But we should remember that we have detail in space, dynamics and tone. Chamber music, as there is no conductor, is my usual example - the small detail is the glue that connects the performers in the reproduction. It makes you feel the music was being performed by several humans, it is not only a tune.