Problems with believability in audio

[Al M.]

Imo, for those into believability (which is not about the silly suspension of disbelief) the apt comparison is not between two components but between a component and live acoustic music. I suspect many audiophiles are not into that because it doesn't help with a purchase choice.

That is always my criterion, and it does help with the purchase choice. Why wouldn't it?

 

[Rexp]

I have a set of Acoustat Spectra 11 hybrid electrostatics that reproduces the dynamic envelope quite respectfully, and the impactfulness of its modified conventional bass modules do well vs the live sound of bass instruments.

I have often surmised that the no-holds-barred performance of my BGW 250D, and its seemingly perfect match to these speakers may be a contributing factor.

I had the Audiostatic ES100 plus bass panels, they had pretty good imaging/dynamics but not as convincing on rock as a horn or a Tannoy.

 

[bonzo75]

It is definitely not universal. I think digital people will testify that they don't experience such relief when moving from digital to analog

There is nothing like digital people. It is people with insufficient experience of analog, not willing to explore it. Anyone with ears gets that with the right exposure. I was a “digital people”, until I heard analog and began exploring it further. It is more about an open mind, not ears. Personal decision of an existing digital person does to not buy analog should be about compromise

 

[Al M.]

While he referenced a particular component brand, he also talked about a sense of 'relief' when a room switched from DAC to analog. This may not be the case for everyone but I experience that phenomenon myself -- it is real for me -- analog is more believable to me. It is not entirely disimilar from Brad's related experience of immediately recognizing live music. I'm talking about the experience or sense of recognition in itself -- the immediacy of the experience. (Not saying one is the other.) Of course I have not heard that many DAC based systems, but the experience is pretty consistent. Not a matter of the ergonomics of using a point and click system, sonics only.

Presumably there are people (many?) who do not have the experience that I have.

Digital under show conditions can be pretty bad. In shows I have experienced the sense of relief as well when switching to analog.

Outside of shows, there were also times when I clearly preferred the analog in other systems over their digital. It all depends.

 

[bonzo75]

Digital under show conditions can be pretty bad. In shows

yes analog set up is perfect at shows everyone knows that.

Also, very few people carry around good digital recordings at shows because they are so bulky, but all rooms are playing back high quality LP recordings at shows.

 

[bonzo75]

Agree that tonality is crucial but I am not sure if it is accurate tone or the ability of a system to resolve the tonal variations between instruments, including instruments of the same type (such as different violin makers), that is more important. Perhaps if the system truly has accurate tone the point is moot; however, there is probably no system that nails it 100%.

The tonal variations, which is part of what I referred to in my post when I said contrasts.

 

[ssfas]

That sounds like a great experience! Yes, piano can sound believable on a good system.

At the end of the day, I only listen to things at home that are believable by virtue of the fact that my room acoustics and hi-fi can deal with the scale and nature of the music. There is plenty of music and performance that I see live that I would never consider listening to at home because it’s not believable on my hi-fi, although it may be more believable with a barn size room, even without the physical presence of performers. If my interest in music was academic, I would only use headphones.

If I’ve had to name the recording that I find the most believable and convincing, this would be it.

I’m pretty sure I purchased the digital download, it is now available to stream. It is not available on vinyl. I have the famous Aurele Nicolet recordings on vinyl, superb pressings, I prefer this digital set.

 

[tima]

At the end of the day, I only listen to things at home that are believable by virtue of the fact that my room acoustics and hi-fi can deal with the scale and nature of the music.

What's your system?

 

[tima]

That is always my criterion, and it does help with the purchase choice. Why wouldn't it?

Lack of exposure? Reliance on reviews and forums? Maybe some do not go to live acoustic concerts? I know that you do and have that experience.

Believability (to me that's realism, natural sound) implies an object of belief, a reference, a standard, a goal. Perhaps that is seen as a limitation by some.

 

[Holmz]

I don't understand what visual images has to do with anything. I don't play my stereo for a visual result.

There is the term “in the mind’s eye”.

What does spatial mean? Soundstage?

Spatial refers to location, distance, etc.
And temporal is referring to time.

 

[sbnx]

I don't understand what visual images has to do with anything. I don't play my stereo for a visual result.

I think what Tom is trying to say is fundamentally stereo has an uphill battle in terms of achieving believability because when we experience the sound we are not looking at a living, breathing thing making that sound. As he says, there is nothing we can do about the first two items in his list. He is just pointing them out as barriers to believability in stereo reproduction.

 

[matthias]

I would argue that in some really key areas audio had actually regressed compared to the best historical systems.

Agree completely

If the goal is the closest similarity to live music then nothing outperforms the best historical systems which are the Western Electric systems in the 20s and 30s of the last century.

My impression considering all these HIGHEND shows from the beginning in Frankfurt/Kempinski up to Munich 2025 is that there is no real progress in this direction.

Since similarity to live music is so difficult to achieve highend manufacturers do focus on audiophile criteria only.

I agree also that only high sensitivity loudspeakers are the way to go but I think these should have minimum 100dB sensitivity. For such speakers are amps with maybe 50VA enough for delivering great musicality.

To create a modern day Western Electric system with the same virtues will be a great achievement.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Those who are married to digital are the new Borgs of audio denial.

As is often the case with you the prejudice of your opinion exceeds the accuracy of your comment.

 

[PeterA]

So, you don’t think cables impact any f the points above?

Wires absolutely matter to the points above. They should be chosen carefully and they need not be expensive or fancy.

 

[Argonaut]

I assume that timbre is what Morricab was referring to, as opposed to frequency response (which is obviously different).

We can see (hear) this time and again, with speakers that have either a limited frequency response, or some level of frequency response deviations, but will sound realistic/natural/pleasant.

But I believe there is something about the frequency response that explains the quality of what I hear and appreciate. I would like to know exactly what it is!

I suspect that you would be quite happy with one of these Viz:

In your corner :}

 

[Robh3606]

This sense of relief is a universal experience.

Not for me. I was a late adaptor to digital. Had my all analog systems half speed masters and IMHO at it's inception digital was a step back. Not anymore! SNAP CRACKLE CRINGE!

Rob

 

[microstrip]

Wires absolutely matter to the points above. They should be chosen carefully and they need not be expensive or fancy.

The same way of amplifiers or sources. As far as I see this hobby not everyone needs fancy expensive electronics costing more than one hundred thousand of USD and needing a few thousands of usd tubes every two years ...

IMO anyone spending more than ten thousand in a system has authority to make comments on "expensive or fancy" . YMMV , surely.

 

[Lee]

Completely the opposite of what I heard in 2 friends' systems I know well and another at SWAF. All 3 systems completely different systems. Organic, smooth, detailed, life - like. Competes with higher $ DACs in the ~$25K range.

Agreed. No brightness in my experience as well.

 

[Robh3606]

Am I the only audiophile whose sole sonic criteria when evaluating two components with vocals is: Does it sound more like or does it sound less like a live person is in the room singing to me?

No I feel the same way. It's uncanny when it sounds like they are in the room with you.

Rob

 

[sbo6]

Those who are married to digital are the new Borgs of audio denial.

I would argue with the limitation of available media, space requirements and cost of media, your supposition is more appropriate for analog.