Natural Sound

[Ron Resnick]

I'll stick to resolution, frequency response, and dynamics.

I'm not an oscilloscope. These sonic attributes are not things that I think about when I go to Walt Disney Concert Hall.

However, I totally respect that if these are your personal sonic cues, then these sonic attributes are the right things for you to care about.

 

[DasguteOhr]

but cables that have high-frequency filters mean that the mid-tone is put more substantially into the foreground. There is certainly a fan base for this sound. Cables with boxes are not my cup of tea. Devices with high-frequency problems benefit enormously from it

 

[PeterA]

Fm acoustics leaves natural sound in the dust

You should make and share some videos of your FM system and start a thread about it. Call it Gold Dust.

 

[hopkins]

I'm not an oscilloscope. These sonic attributes are not things that I think about when I go to Walt Disney Concert Hall.

However, I totally respect that if these are your personal sonic cues, then these sonic attributes are the right things for you to care about.

I understand the objection.

If you were to compare two systems do you think you would ever qualify one as providing more “detail” and the other more “information”?

 

[microstrip]

but cables that have high-frequency filters mean that the mid-tone is put more substantially into the foreground. There is certainly a fan base for this sound. Cables with boxes are not my cup of tea. Devices with high-frequency problems benefit enormously from it

Most cables with networks have cutoff frequency above 150 KHz - they do not affect frequency in the audio band.

 

[hopkins]

I'm not an oscilloscope. These sonic attributes are not things that I think about when I go to Walt Disney Concert Hall.

However, I totally respect that if these are your personal sonic cues, then these sonic attributes are the right things for you to care about.

P.S. if you were to record an instrument and then compare its sound played back on two different systems I believe it would be very easy to say which system offered more resolution, less coloration, and more life-like dynamics.

 

[Ron Resnick]

P.S. if you were to record an instrument and then compare its sound played back on two different systems I believe it would be very easy to say which system offered more resolution, less coloration, and more life-like dynamics.

I agree.

But what question does that answer for you?

For me, answering that question doesn't tell me which recording is the more convincing or believable reproduction of the sound of that instrument.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I understand the objection.

Thank you.

If you were to compare two systems do you think you would ever qualify one as providing more “detail” and the other more “information”?

I don't think so. (But then Peter and I have different definitions of "resolution.")

We are assigning meanings and characterizations to terms. I don't think there's anything ruthlessly objective here.

I would be comfortable treating "detail" and "resolution" as synonyms. I apply the video concept of resolution to sound, and so my definition is: the clarity or fineness of detail that can be distinguished in reproduced sound.

Resolution is, for me, a substantially objective concept, analogous to pixels in video (more pixels per inch equals greater resolution). Think of resolving power as in a telescope or a microscope, but in the context of sound.

So I think detail and resolution are describing pretty much the same thing.

"Information" I see as different, as something broader. I think a sonic presentation can present more information without necessarily being more detailed or resolving.

 

[hopkins]

I agree.

But what question does that answer for you?

For me, answering that question doesn't tell me which recording is the more convincing or believable reproduction of the sound of that instrument

It does not answer any questions - these are just some aspects of sound that can help us explain perceived differences.

All systems have their pros and cons. Choosing is a matter of personal preference.

What is the alternative? To assign a completely subjective degree of “naturalness”? This system is 90% natural, whereas this other is 95%?

 

[cough]

P.S. if you were to record an instrument and then compare its sound played back on two different systems I believe it would be very easy to say which system offered more resolution, less coloration, and more life-like dynamics.

It works perfectly in theory on computer screen. In practice it is quite the opposite.

In what hall/concert hall/room it is recorded with what microphone(s) (directivity pattern, on and off axis response, distance and positioning to the instrument) with what production goal? You would be surprised how the results would vary even with the same instrument/player/section/orchestra depending on many other things - how much detail vs ambience the producer and artist wants to have in the limited stereo delivery medium. Let's take for example cello section of an orchestra in highly reverberant hall - how do we want to hear it: usually drowned in orchestral sonority or highlighted and to which extent? And now not just for cello section but for each section of the orchestra... that changes both detail and coloration significantly giving it less coloration from the reverb of the hall (assuming no artificial reverb added) but getting unnatural detail (when overdone in mix) in the recording - hardly to be heard live when seated in row 20 at the concert.... and at the same time chasing the high-end system to play that "overproduced" recording with naturalness and ease. Same applies with single instrument, recorded in the ordinary room, but it is less noticeable (unless you record the instrument in the room with pair of omnis and then play it - with boxy sound - of the room - and how it colors the sound and how it mushes the detail).

 

[hopkins]

It works perfectly in theory on computer screen. In practice it is quite the opposite.

In what hall/concert hall/room it is recorded with what microphone(s) (directivity pattern, on and off axis response, distance and positioning to the instrument) with what production goal? You would be surprised how the results would vary even with the same instrument/player/section/orchestra depending on many other things - how much detail vs ambience the producer and artist wants to have in the limited stereo delivery medium. Let's take for example cello section of an orchestra in highly reverberant hall - how do we want to hear it: usually drowned in orchestral sonority or highlighted and to which extent? And now not just for cello section but for each section of the orchestra... that changes both detail and coloration significantly giving it less coloration from the reverb of the hall (assuming no artificial reverb added) but getting unnatural detail (when overdone in mix) in the recording - hardly to be heard live when seated in row 20 at the concert.... and at the same time chasing the high-end system to play that "overproduced" recording with naturalness and ease. Same applies with single instrument, recorded in the ordinary room, but it is less noticeable (unless you record the instrument in the room with pair of omnis and then play it - with boxy sound - of the room - and how it colors the sound and how it mushes the detail).

Hi,

I am well aware of all these factors, and I am not talking about evaluating recordings but evaluating systems. Let's say you record the same musician in three different ways, and then you evaluate those three recordings on two systems. Do you think that depending on the recording you would evaluate the systems differently? I don't think so (but I could of course be wrong!). I would assume that the winner of the two speakers would probably be the one that allowed you to differentiate the recordings more easily - to show their "personalities" so to speak - while at the same time being pleasant to listen to (lack of distortion, rather neutral frequency response, etc...).

 

[Ron Resnick]

What is the alternative?

Sorry, alternative to what? Alternative to using these terms?

To assign a completely subjective degree of “naturalness”? This system is 90% natural, whereas this other is 95%?

The incomparability of interpersonal utility teaches us that with something subjective and personally preferential like sound or ice cream it is impossible to devise an objective, quantitative metric.

 

[Al M.]

"Information" I see as different, as something broader. I think a sonic presentation can present more information without necessarily being more detailed or resolving.

Can you elaborate, please?

 

[hopkins]

Sorry, alternative to what? Alternative to using these terms?

I simply meant - as you mentioned in the rest of your post - that there is no method that can decide for you what is more "realistic" overall. Although perhaps with AI?

I was thinking about all this because I actually went to audition some speakers this morning... It was fun.

While it is impossible to summarize the sound that is heard through a simple set of criteria, I find it equally difficult to listen to recordings and ask myself whether they sound like live music or not, because they simply don't. The dealer played a Johnny Cash track and I closed my eyes and simply enjoyed listening, but I don't know what Johnny Cash really sounded like. I played that David Watkin Bach solo recording which was mentioned in a thread here, and it sounded pretty good. It did raise some questions, but the acoustics were not ideal. I am not that familiar with the track, it is played on an old instrument - it is not so easy to compare it to a reference.

During that audition, I did try to evaluate some aspect of the sound, in comparison to what I am used to listening at home: resolution, neutrality, dynamics/speed., etc.. What did I conclude from it? That I will be returning next week for another listening session!

 

[Ron Resnick]

Can you elaborate, please?

I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but, just off the top of my head, I see greater tonal density as more information but not necessarily more detail or more resolution.

 

[Al M.]

I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but, just off the top of my head, I see greater tonal density as more information but not necessarily more detail or more resolution.

That makes sense, thanks.

 

[morricab]

Have you ever heard cables that lower midrange frequencies?

Yes of course, and bas and highs and flatten stages and and and.

 

[cough]

Hi,

I am well aware of all these factors, and I am not talking about evaluating recordings but evaluating systems. Let's say you record the same musician in three different ways, and then you evaluate those three recordings on two systems. Do you think that depending on the recording you would evaluate the systems differently? I don't think so (but I could of course be wrong!). I would assume that the winner of the two speakers would probably be the one that allowed you to differentiate the recordings more easily - to show their "personalities" so to speak - while at the same time being pleasant to listen to (lack of distortion, rather neutral frequency response, etc...).

Yes and no. In theory - being able to distinguish the recordings from one to another while at the same time - all of them sounding good without equipment/speakers/room defects is the philosophical ultima of all the hi-fi efforts - at least for me. However, in practical terms it is a bit more complicated which is beyond the scope of this thread -- and as a result of this complexity there is a gray zone - where several different outcomes (e.g. three recordings on two systems) would be acceptable without clear winner or winners and losers, especially when dealing with competently designed components/speakers.

Which leads to the question whether depending on the recording the evaluation of the system would be different. Yes and No. Depends on the context. During an audio show (mostly Munich and Warsaw) when I am allowed to play the recording known to me I can assess the results far more precisely (within obvious limitations of an audio show). In case of smooth vocal repertoire played by exhibitors I can say only hmmm... I do not know. When I have far more time (either visiting audiophile buddies) or far far more time - having a component for loan then I usually play same orchestra playing same program with different conductors recorded by different labels which is actually kind of what you mentioned. In my reality I can easily (and actually do) compare, let's say Wiener Philharmoniker playing Beethoven under Bohm, Kleiber, Kubelik, Bernstein, Abbado, Rattle, Thielemann, Nelsons) and all those renditions sound very very different from one to another - and they are the same instrument (WP) - yet all of them shall have that Wienerklang and sound convicingly within the limits of the recording intentions and actual results (full beefy sound of Bohm, relatively bass shy Kleiber, nice analogue balanced Bernstein, 80s DG digi sound for Abbado, Rattle imitating period instrument practice and Nelsons and Thielemann full modern sound but uninteresting and sometimes sloppy playing). In such case I am able to say something meaningful on how components/speakers/room perform and what is there to improve. Had I been using only one recording (and not knowing its specifics) I would be able to say only something like "okay, whatever"....

 

[PeterA]

Thank you.


I don't think so. (But then Peter and I have different definitions of "resolution.")

We are assigning meanings and characterizations to terms. I don't think there's anything ruthlessly objective here.

I would be comfortable treating "detail" and "resolution" as synonyms. I apply the video concept of resolution to sound, and so my definition is: the clarity or fineness of detail that can be distinguished in reproduced sound.

Resolution is, for me, a substantially objective concept, analogous to pixels in video (more pixels per inch equals greater resolution). Think of resolving power as in a telescope or a microscope, but in the context of sound.

So I think detail and resolution are describing pretty much the same thing.

"Information" I see as different, as something broader. I think a sonic presentation can present more information without necessarily being more detailed or resolving.

Ron, in your pixel count definition of resolution and considering that to be analogous to audio, how far are you away from the screen? I find that one can sit too close or too far from the picture to appreciate the presentation. Yet the resolution stays the same. That is why I prefer to think of information from the groove being presented naturally to the listener. The amount of information in the groove that gets presented plus how it is presented is a measure of the resolving abilities of the audio system in a particular room.

I understand that you and others think of it differently.

 

[hopkins]

I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but, just off the top of my head, I see greater tonal density as more information but not necessarily more detail or more resolution.

When you put more thought into it, let us know. Detail is a bad word here, in this thread, so instead, information is used. Whatever…