Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?

[Musica Bella]

There are a lot of speaker options these days. Even affordable speakers should be able to produce a satisfying sound field.
In regard to ‘is it worth it’, that up to the consumer to decide. It doesn’t matter if it’s a $5000 system or a $500k system (easy to find these days), as long as the listener enjoys their purchase, it’s not up to us to decide. It’s not our system nor is it our money.
Being a small manufacturer, there really is no limit of what people want. I don’t dabble in the ultra expensive but highly respect that part of the industry.

 

[Gregm]

I think high end does deliver IF set up right. IME setting up right is painstaking and takes time---even when you start the journey with professional support.
By WBF standards, my system is borderline medium level (below 150k). The sound, however, is captivating --- there is enthusiasm, rhythm, dynamics, excitement... *(add lib)

*except on the current exceptionally hot days when everyone and their dog is polluting the mains with their air-con (as do I) drops a notch to "very good".

 

[Rexp]

There are a lot of speaker options these days. Even affordable speakers should be able to produce a satisfying sound field.
In regard to ‘is it worth it’, that up to the consumer to decide. It doesn’t matter if it’s a $5000 system or a $500k system (easy to find these days), as long as the listener enjoys their purchase, it’s not up to us to decide. It’s not our system nor is it our money.
Being a small manufacturer, there really is no limit of what people want. I don’t dabble in the ultra expensive but highly respect that part of the industry.

Well, whether one is satisfied with the sound field depends on whether you've heard 3D imaging. If you haven't experienced it, you'll be satisfied with mediocre imaging, if you have heard 3D, you'll settle for nothing less.

 

[morricab]

There are a lot of speaker options these days. Even affordable speakers should be able to produce a satisfying sound field.
In regard to ‘is it worth it’, that up to the consumer to decide. It doesn’t matter if it’s a $5000 system or a $500k system (easy to find these days), as long as the listener enjoys their purchase, it’s not up to us to decide. It’s not our system nor is it our money.
Being a small manufacturer, there really is no limit of what people want. I don’t dabble in the ultra expensive but highly respect that part of the industry.

It may not be for us to decide how one spends their money but if you bring up your system on a forum then it is open for us to discuss what pros and cons we think a particular system has based on experience with those or similar components.

 

[microstrip]

Well, whether one is satisfied with the sound field depends on whether you've heard 3D imaging. If you haven't experienced it, you'll be satisfied with mediocre imaging, if you have heard 3D, you'll settle for nothing less.

IMO it depends a lot on the type of music we want to listen and how do we listen to it. Many audiophiles I know care more about other aspects than imaging, and they have listened to great 3D.

Also stereo reproduction of acoustic music has no intrinsic 3D imaging capabilities - it creates an illusionary soundstage that depends a lot on the listener and system. Can you tell us some details about the systems and recordings that you have listened that have top 3D?

 

[godofwealth]

There’s no 3D imaging in a concert hall generally. You get a wash of reverberant sound from millions of reflections across the concert hall. You localize visually for the most part. If you closed your eyes, 3D imaging largely disappears. Occasionally concerts will feature instruments that are placed off stage like the rear or side of the hall. But that’s more for show.

Perhaps it’s a sign of my age, but I don’t care one whit about imaging. In my youth ( as Father Brown famously said), I obsessed over imaging from reading too much of HP’s writings in TAS. These days I generally care more about the music and often walk around my room when an album is playing. Plus I listen a lot to mono recordings, which at least on vinyl sound a lot more realistic than fake stereo.

The greatest recordings from the first half of the 20th century are in mono. That includes even later jazz and pop, from The Beatles to Bob Dylan to Frank Sinatra. One thing they all shared was a distaste for stereo. They recognized that stereo was just a fad from record companies to sell more records for a few cents more. The Beatles carefully supervised the original mono albums. The stereo versions were generally left to some studio flunky.

Of course when multichannel SACD came out, the record companies pulled the same stunt as when stereo was introduced. Sony put out all the mono Bob Dylan albums in fake surround sound.

Thus the world goes around, as the famous monks in France say who have been making chartreuse for a thousand years.

I’m listening now to Gerry Mulligan’s classic album Jeru in fake stereo. The piano is panned hard to the right channel, drums on the left channel and his baritone sax in center mono. It’s completely fake and manufactured. Enjoyable nonetheless. But it bears no resemblance to any kind of reality.

 

[Rexp]

IMO it depends a lot on the type of music we want to listen and how do we listen to it. Many audiophiles I know care more about other aspects than imaging, and they have listened to great 3D.

Also stereo reproduction of acoustic music has no intrinsic 3D imaging capabilities - it creates an illusionary soundstage that depends a lot on the listener and system. Can you tell us some details about the systems and recordings that you have listened that have top 3D?

It's recording dependant not music type dependant. Sure some folks forsake 3D imaging for other aspects like lifelike dynamics but I can't see how they would be satisfied listening to a recording that they know has 3D on a system that doesn't produce 3D.

 

[mtemur]

Dear @Rexp and @godofwealth,

IMHO, there is no real 3D imaging in most of the music we listen to—no stage depth either. Almost all modern music is recorded using multi-mic setups, with microphones placed very close to each instrument.

There are exceptions, such as classical recordings from the ’50s and early ’60s made with just two or three microphones positioned above the conductor’s head, or some very early mono recordings made with a single mic. Another rare exception is Ken Christianson’s “True Stereo” recordings for the Naim label. But for the vast majority of music, close-miking dominates.

In many cases, the 3D image or stage depth people talk about is actually a product of the listening room’s reverberations and reflections—and the placement of the speakers. These spatial cues aren’t captured by the microphones to begin with. Put on a pair of proper headphones and you’ll notice how that artificial 3D image vanishes. It’s just room echo.

Systems that rely on this kind of artificially produced imaging often struggle to reproduce electronic tracks or synth pop with strong bass and high BPM. Why? Because the artificial “3D image” continues to linger even after the actual signal has stopped and a new one has started. These setups simply can’t handle electronic, pop, or most rock music at high levels.

You don’t have to like that kind of music—but it’s great for testing. For example, play Billie Jean from Thriller. If you can clearly follow every note of the synth bass and all the details are crisp and distinct, then your system’s doing fine.

IMHO it’s better to focus on how realistic the instruments sound, how lifelike the sound in general, does it keep you continue listening or not when evaluating an audio setup instead of descriptions like 3D image.

 

[morricab]

Dear @Rexp and @godofwealth,

IMHO, there is no real 3D imaging in most of the music we listen to—no stage depth either. Almost all modern music is recorded using multi-mic setups, with microphones placed very close to each instrument.

There are exceptions, such as classical recordings from the ’50s and early ’60s made with just two or three microphones positioned above the conductor’s head, or some very early mono recordings made with a single mic. Another rare exception is Ken Christianson’s “True Stereo” recordings for the Naim label. But for the vast majority of music, close-miking dominates.

In many cases, the 3D image or stage depth people talk about is actually a product of the listening room’s reverberations and reflections—and the placement of the speakers. These spatial cues aren’t captured by the microphones to begin with. Put on a pair of proper headphones and you’ll notice how that artificial 3D image vanishes. It’s just room echo.

Systems that rely on this kind of artificially produced imaging often struggle to reproduce electronic tracks or synth pop with strong bass and high BPM. Why? Because the artificial “3D image” continues to linger even after the actual signal has stopped and a new one has started. These setups simply can’t handle electronic, pop, or most rock music at high levels.

You don’t have to like that kind of music—but it’s great for testing. For example, play Billie Jean from Thriller. If you can clearly follow every note of the synth bass and all the details are crisp and distinct, then your system’s doing fine.

IMHO it’s better to focus on how realistic the instruments sound, how lifelike the sound in general, does it keep you continue listening or not when evaluating an audio setup instead of descriptions like 3D image.

What a load of nonsense....

 

[mtemur]

What a load of nonsense....

Then explain why – If you can.

 

[Rexp]

Dear @Rexp and @godofwealth,

IMHO, there is no real 3D imaging in most of the music we listen to—no stage depth either.

Agreed.

 

[morricab]

Dear @Rexp and @godofwealth,

IMHO, there is no real 3D imaging in most of the music we listen to—no stage depth either. Almost all modern music is recorded using multi-mic setups, with microphones placed very close to each instrument.

There are exceptions, such as classical recordings from the ’50s and early ’60s made with just two or three microphones positioned above the conductor’s head, or some very early mono recordings made with a single mic. Another rare exception is Ken Christianson’s “True Stereo” recordings for the Naim label. But for the vast majority of music, close-miking dominates.

In many cases, the 3D image or stage depth people talk about is actually a product of the listening room’s reverberations and reflections—and the placement of the speakers. These spatial cues aren’t captured by the microphones to begin with. Put on a pair of proper headphones and you’ll notice how that artificial 3D image vanishes. It’s just room echo.

Systems that rely on this kind of artificially produced imaging often struggle to reproduce electronic tracks or synth pop with strong bass and high BPM. Why? Because the artificial “3D image” continues to linger even after the actual signal has stopped and a new one has started. These setups simply can’t handle electronic, pop, or most rock music at high levels.

You don’t have to like that kind of music—but it’s great for testing. For example, play Billie Jean from Thriller. If you can clearly follow every note of the synth bass and all the details are crisp and distinct, then your system’s doing fine.

IMHO it’s better to focus on how realistic the instruments sound, how lifelike the sound in general, does it keep you continue listening or not when evaluating an audio setup instead of descriptions like 3D image.

Where to start? I guess the first point that there no real 3D imaging. This is just patently false and it is the rare exceptionally poor recording that doesn’t produce a 3D image with the right gear. Depth can be absent but imaging not. Microphone placement might damage soundstage but it improves imaging.

A lot of labels are good at creating soundstage in the production…it might not be the real ambient space but there should be depth because it is being intentionally added.

Plenty of live recordings with good soundstage…not just minimalist recordings from the 50s and 60s.

3D image is DAMAGED by the room, not created or enhanced by reverberations and reflections. These usually damage soundstage as well with the notable exception of dipole speakers. This is why room treatment for wide dispersion box/cone/dome speakers is such a big sub industry…left untreated it is almost always detrimental, not beneficial. Spatial cues are most certainly captured in recordings or added later but they are there nonetheless and not products of room reflection. Study up on delay times and impact on perception.

The whole thing about electronic music and 3D imaging is hard to understand how you reached such a backwards conclusion. 3D images don’t linger and therefore interfere with next signals…room reflections and reverberations do. As I have just pointed out above, these don’t enhance 3D or soundstage properties but can smear the sound, rendering the sound softer and less crisp/punchy than it should be. A system that can image and soundstage well is probably doing a lot right and will not struggle with electronic or pop music, such as Billie Jean. It will show that a lot of that music is dynamically flat and probably spatially flat as well, making it not ideal test music.
A good electronic music test record is Yello Touch. This has plenty of electronic bass lines with pulsing beats but also great imaging and depth/width (artificial of course) and transparency. Also mixed in with some singing from Heidi Happy and Boris Blank and some trumpet from Till Broenner and it makes great music that sounds great.

No one doubts instrumental timbre and tonality are vital to realism but so are mental visualisation of the instruments in 3D, it’s the whole reason stereo was created.

 

[mtemur]

Where to start? I guess the first point that there no real 3D imaging. This is just patently false and it is the rare exceptionally poor recording that doesn’t produce a 3D image with the right gear. Depth can be absent but imaging not. Microphone placement might damage soundstage but it improves imaging.

A lot of labels are good at creating soundstage in the production…it might not be the real ambient space but there should be depth because it is being intentionally added.

Plenty of live recordings with good soundstage…not just minimalist recordings from the 50s and 60s.

3D image is DAMAGED by the room, not created or enhanced by reverberations and reflections. These usually damage soundstage as well with the notable exception of dipole speakers. This is why room treatment for wide dispersion box/cone/dome speakers is such a big sub industry…left untreated it is almost always detrimental, not beneficial. Spatial cues are most certainly captured in recordings or added later but they are there nonetheless and not products of room reflection. Study up on delay times and impact on perception.

The whole thing about electronic music and 3D imaging is hard to understand how you reached such a backwards conclusion. 3D images don’t linger and therefore interfere with next signals…room reflections and reverberations do. As I have just pointed out above, these don’t enhance 3D or soundstage properties but can smear the sound, rendering the sound softer and less crisp/punchy than it should be. A system that can image and soundstage well is probably doing a lot right and will not struggle with electronic or pop music, such as Billie Jean. It will show that a lot of that music is dynamically flat and probably spatially flat as well, making it not ideal test music.
A good electronic music test record is Yello Touch. This has plenty of electronic bass lines with pulsing beats but also great imaging and depth/width (artificial of course) and transparency. Also mixed in with some singing from Heidi Happy and Boris Blank and some trumpet from Till Broenner and it makes great music that sounds great.

No one doubts instrumental timbre and tonality are vital to realism but so are mental visualisation of the instruments in 3D, it’s the whole reason stereo was created.

For the majority of your post, I don’t think I would object. But—

Are you sure you’re not confusing the realism and tone of instruments with 3D imaging? That’s what I gathered from your post.

Also, I think you misunderstood why I mentioned electronic, pop, and some rock music. These genres are useful for evaluating control, power, and the start-stop capabilities of your setup. Try it yourself and see if you can hear individual bass notes clearly—without losing high-end detail and without descending into cacophony.

 

[hopkins]

Is 3D imaging synonymous with "presence"? If so, it is important!

P.S. presence can be achieved with a single speaker, so it has nothing to do with stereo.

 

[microstrip]

Where to start? I guess the first point that there no real 3D imaging. This is just patently false and it is the rare exceptionally poor recording that doesn’t produce a 3D image with the right gear. Depth can be absent but imaging not. Microphone placement might damage soundstage but it improves imaging.
(...)

Probably a question of semantics, but IMO there is no "real" 3D imaging stereo if we address the physical sense of 3D sound images and the natural processes of perceiving image it in real performances. Stereo gives us panning and out of plane imaging due to phase manipulation or reflections, that are are hard to predict during recording. Phase information in common acoustic recordings is known to be minimal and not enough to create a 3D image. Stereo studies in the 60's have shown a very large variation of the positions in the orchestra instruments when listeners involved in the test were asked to draw a layout of the orchestra. On recordings I know well I noticed very large variations of imaging between systems.

One way to learn about the stereo imaging limitations is researching the subject of 3D imaging in ambisonics, binaural audio or multichannel - this people expose them clearly. The real proof of the weakness and unpredictability of stereo 3D is that 70 years later we are still debating on the best way to get it ...

IMO the 3D imaging I get from my current systems is not better than what was available to me 30 years ago - the improvements exist elsewhere - much more information that increases believability, dynamics, transparency and lower level of artefacts - in fact more music from sound reproduction. As I told before, my long time reference for imaging is the Quad ESL63 when properly positioned.

 

[DaveC]

Dear @Rexp and @godofwealth,

IMHO, there is no real 3D imaging in most of the music we listen to—no stage depth either. Almost all modern music is recorded using multi-mic setups, with microphones placed very close to each instrument.

There are exceptions, such as classical recordings from the ’50s and early ’60s made with just two or three microphones positioned above the conductor’s head, or some very early mono recordings made with a single mic. Another rare exception is Ken Christianson’s “True Stereo” recordings for the Naim label. But for the vast majority of music, close-miking dominates.

In many cases, the 3D image or stage depth people talk about is actually a product of the listening room’s reverberations and reflections—and the placement of the speakers. These spatial cues aren’t captured by the microphones to begin with. Put on a pair of proper headphones and you’ll notice how that artificial 3D image vanishes. It’s just room echo.

Systems that rely on this kind of artificially produced imaging often struggle to reproduce electronic tracks or synth pop with strong bass and high BPM. Why? Because the artificial “3D image” continues to linger even after the actual signal has stopped and a new one has started. These setups simply can’t handle electronic, pop, or most rock music at high levels.

You don’t have to like that kind of music—but it’s great for testing. For example, play Billie Jean from Thriller. If you can clearly follow every note of the synth bass and all the details are crisp and distinct, then your system’s doing fine.

IMHO it’s better to focus on how realistic the instruments sound, how lifelike the sound in general, does it keep you continue listening or not when evaluating an audio setup instead of descriptions like 3D image.

You are confusing undesirable room effects with the room getting out of the way so the recording can present spatial cues without the room mangling and homogenizing them. You can't achieve a "you are there" presentation when the room imposes it's own spatial cues, what you get instead is a "they are here" presentation.

A true 3-D soundstage goes hand in hand with realistic timbre, a good waterfall plot so there is none of this "lingering" you refer to, which is a real issue that also prevents a "you are there" presentation. The fact a system is capable of presenting a quality soundstage is simply part of a what a good system does, you can't pick and choose what you want out of a system and say "Hey, I don't care about soundstage, just give me dynamics!". That is ridiculous. Either your system is capable of reproducing what is on the recording, or it isn't. The entire frame of your post is not based in reality and shows a misguided picture of how a stereo really works.

Even mono recordings produce a soundstage because there are spatial cues present in the recording, it just doesn't image. I have all the beatles in both mono and stereo. The reason why mono was often preferrable is they had no clue how to engineer stereo recordings when stereo first came out. Hard panned imaging, etc.... it was a mess! That has no relation to stereo today, lol... All this talk of soundstage not mattering in mono recordings is similarly misguided. If you think soundstage doesn't matter than you also don't think resolution or high fidelity matters either. Which is fine, if your goal is to have your system sound a certain way and you don't care about actually hearing what's on the recording. IMO, there are almost two different hobbies, one guided by a listner's personal preferences and their own individual experiences of live sound. But High Fidelity simply seeks to reproduce what's on the recording. They are not the same endeavors. No judgements, but personally, I am in this for the high fidelity first and foremost. I use engineering and actual objective facts and measurements to achieve my sound and actually listen to be sure that leads to a better subjective experience. I do not seek to make my system, sound like I think it should based on my limited N=1 experience of live music unless I was the one who made the recording or I was actually there for the recording.

Probably a question of semantics, but IMO there is no "real" 3D imaging stereo if we address the physical sense of 3D sound images and the natural processes of perceiving image it in real performances. Stereo gives us panning and out of plane imaging due to phase manipulation or reflections, that are are hard to predict during recording. Phase information in common acoustic recordings is known to be minimal and not enough to create a 3D image. Stereo studies in the 60's have shown a very large variation of the positions in the orchestra instruments when listeners involved in the test were asked to draw a layout of the orchestra. On recordings I know well I noticed very large variations of imaging between systems.

One way to learn about the stereo imaging limitations is researching the subject of 3D imaging in ambisonics, binaural audio or multichannel - this people expose them clearly. The real proof of the weakness and unpredictability of stereo 3D is that 70 years later we are still debating on the best way to get it ...

IMO the 3D imaging I get from my current systems is not better than what was available to me 30 years ago - the improvements exist elsewhere - much more information that increases believability, dynamics, transparency and lower level of artefacts - in fact more music from sound reproduction. As I told before, my long time reference for imaging is the Quad ESL63 when properly positioned.

Disagree. Sound changes depending on distance and this is easily captured by a recording or added to it by the folks doing the recording. Stereo imaging does have it's limitations but these are overstated by proponents of multichannel and the fact stereo recordings do in fact contain cues as to distances that are capable of producing a 3-D soundstage are often disregarded. Many times they are disregarded because the person has had no real experience of a system that is capable of presenting such a soundstage. The reason is the soundstage is a result of the complete system which includes and requires every aspect of the system to be optimized, including such things as cables and AC power quality that often are disregarded.

This is more an issue with ignorance of what stereo is capable of combined with am ignorance of psychoacoustics and a bias towards multichannel.

 

[morricab]

Is 3D imaging synonymous with "presence"? If so, it is important!

P.S. presence can be achieved with a single speaker, so it has nothing to do with stereo.

Yes it is basically synonymous

 

[morricab]

For the majority of your post, I don’t think I would object. But—

Are you sure you’re not confusing the realism and tone of instruments with 3D imaging? That’s what I gathered from your post.

Also, I think you misunderstood why I mentioned electronic, pop, and some rock music. These genres are useful for evaluating control, power, and the start-stop capabilities of your setup. Try it yourself and see if you can hear individual bass notes clearly—without losing high-end detail and without descending into cacophony.

No, no confusion. I am saying tone and 3D imaging are both critical for realism.

Not sure what you didn’t understand about my Yello example as an electronic music example I use in demos sometimes.

 

[Anton D]

Well, high end watches, wine, and fashion don't scream "worth it," but here we are!

I admit to having a 'no way, I am in the BS zone' point, but we all have our version of that, I suspect.

 

[PeterA]

Yes it is basically synonymous

In my opinion, 3-D imaging is insufficient for producing presence. It is necessary, but insufficient. For a good sense of presence, I also want to hear a sense of energy expanding into the room, convincing dynamics, proper scale, and sufficient loudness. Tone and timbre must also be good.

For me, presence is a more holistic quality where many individual attributes are necessary and must come together. Basically, when the listener imagines he is in the presence of the musicians, a level of believability has been achieved and the system is capable of presenting a sense of realism.