Visit to Marc C.'s (SpiritOfMusic's) House in England

[bonzo75]

I would not say that you have to hear so many components if you can tell when it is right. You need to be VERY familiar with live music and not just from the mid-hall perspective...most recordings are not made that way and the sound is far closer to the upfront and present sound of sitting very close to a performer. If you can hold that aural memory well enough then you can judge closer to lifelike (it will never sound absolutely live...the recording itself prevents this) or further...no need for a number scale.

I was giving a simplistic explanation of an example using a numbered scale to show that some components are more live like than others (and some will be negative). If someone is not an audiophile, he can suspend disbelief with very average gear. So really to know which is more live like than the other and which fits into the constraints of one's budget and space one has to hear many. Many components and many systems with different strategies to see what works best. Otherwise you can buy just about anything and satisfy yourself

 

[DaveyF]

Dynamics and jump factor are the final frontier for most audiophiles...the key ingredient that is missing.

+1

Problem is that there are scant few recordings that have anything like enough SQ to portray that. I think many times we assume that the gear we are using isn't up to snuff...when in fact the recording itself is the real problem. This may apply a lot less to tape...but even there the quality of the recording is paramount. I'm sure all of us have heard numerous tapes that just don't cut it...due to the original recording quality.Seems like it really is a rare event when an engineer gets it all right...and the music is recorded as to what was played back that day....in all of its glory. ( remember there are so many poor quality or marginal quality pieces in the original recording chain. From the microphones to the cabling to the cutting amps to the tape heads to the "monitoring speakers" and on and on).

 

[DaveyF]

I was giving a simplistic explanation of an example using a numbered scale to show that some components are more live like than others (and some will be negative). If someone is not an audiophile, he can suspend disbelief with very average gear. So really to know which is more live like than the other and which fits into the constraints of one's budget and space one has to hear many. Many components and many systems with different strategies to see what works best. Otherwise you can buy just about anything and satisfy yourself

I think that what you just posted is 100% correct. To my point above, an awesome recording is going to please a lot more people --even on an average system, than the typical marginal recording on a top high end system.

 

[morricab]

I was giving a simplistic explanation of an example using a numbered scale to show that some components are more live like than others (and some will be negative). If someone is not an audiophile, he can suspend disbelief with very average gear. So really to know which is more live like than the other and which fits into the constraints of one's budget and space one has to hear many. Many components and many systems with different strategies to see what works best. Otherwise you can buy just about anything and satisfy yourself

Being satisfied and convincing yourself it sounds like live are not at all the same thing. I am sure those who are satsfied with simple, inexpensive systems or earbuds would not claim it sounds just like live to them.

 

[Al M.]

I think that what you just posted is 100% correct. To my point above, an awesome recording is going to please a lot more people --even on an average system, than the typical marginal recording on a top high end system.

...except that not too rarely the 'typical marginal recording', as judged being this way on a less great system, turns out to be an excellent on a top high end system.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Yes Al, but my reservations about those uber top end systems is how poor than can make just less than average recordings sound.

Even w my not particularly extravagant system, I've got to a point where my system/room fidelity reveals I have a good deal more records that show limitations with the same core components less well set up in a more deficient acoustic.

I know of a system in the UK, likely in the upper upper echelon which indeed really picks apart anything other than stellar recordings on stellar pressings.

With my collection of 2k prog rock and fusion lps and cds, a fair proportion having challenging productions, I'd be reluctant to run a system that forensically revealed this all the time.

 

[jeff1225]

Yes Al, but my reservations about those uber top end systems is how poor than can make just less than average recordings sound.

Even w my not particularly extravagant system, I've got to a point where my system/room fidelity reveals I have a good deal more records that show limitations with the same core components less well set up in a more deficient acoustic.

I know of a system in the UK, likely in the upper upper echelon which indeed really picks apart anything other than stellar recordings on stellar pressings.

With my collection of 2k prog rock and fusion lps and cds, a fair proportion having challenging productions, I'd be reluctant to run a system that forensically revealed this all the time.

This is a great insight. In the past, I had a system that was too detailed and ended up being fatiguing when listened to over an hour (Focal beryllium tweeters were probably the cause.) There is a lot of great music out there that leads something to be desired when played through a hyper detailed system. One cannot live by Steely Dan alone.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Jeffrey, it's why I steer past all those rooms at shows that play "just perfect" smooth jazz and vocals, and stay in those rooms playing a wider variety of less stellar sounding stuff.

The system I've alluded to has the UK's likely best set up tt and horns, and yet I've been reliably told it just reveals so much stuff for what it is, ruthlessly.

 

[DaveyF]

...except that not too rarely the 'typical marginal recording', as judged being this way on a less great system, turns out to be an excellent on a top high end system.

Not really. Almost all systems can respond to a great recording...and the marginal recording is almost always that...marginal.

 

[DaveyF]

Jeffrey, it's why I steer past all those rooms at shows that play "just perfect" smooth jazz and vocals, and stay in those rooms playing a wider variety of less stellar sounding stuff.

The system I've alluded to has the UK's likely best set up tt and horns, and yet I've been reliably told it just reveals so much stuff for what it is, ruthlessly.

Marc, surely if a system is ruthlessly revealing, then it is also flawed if it has failings in reproducing any music style....including prog rock. Here's the problem that we have with so much rock/prog music...and this really came home to me last night in a long listening session with a lot of prog. Most of it was recorded pathetically. Is that the fault of the system...or the recording engineer at the prog session. IMO, the engineer and the musicians were at fault. ( yes the musicians...why bother spending good money on a pretty album cover ( as so many did) when your engineering/recording chain is up to shit!)

 

[jeff1225]

Jeffrey, it's why I steer past all those rooms at shows that play "just perfect" smooth jazz and vocals, and stay in those rooms playing a wider variety of less stellar sounding stuff.

The system I've alluded to has the UK's likely best set up tt and horns, and yet I've been reliably told it just reveals so much stuff for what it is, ruthlessly.

Agreed. It's always suspect when a room plays only a specific type of music and doesn't allow outside music to be played.

Ron visited my room and played an album that I found a little bright on my horns. Ron said "no, that's exactly how it's supposed to sound." I can imagine that some dealers/manufacturers can't take a chance to let their system not sounds it's best. I listen to everything except country, the system I live with can't be a one trick pony.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Davey, there's plenty of prog and fusion that sounds just fine, but obviously a shed load that doesn't.

From a fidelity POV, maybe I've drawn the short straw in that I've evolved my system to sound as good as possible w this material.

In the past this meant that more pure recordings like the best classical didn't shine on my system.

What's fascinating now is that my system is so much more open that classical and jazz sounds so much more impressive, and I'm hearing the limitations in my prog and fusion for the first time.

 

[NorthStar]

No Country music Jeffrey? Some of my country music albums are audiophile recording sounds.

It's from this album (SACD):

 

[Lagonda]

It is a SACD but calling it audiophile sound is a stretch ! Regretfully country music where early adopters of digital recording and mastering.
Some of the early Cash recordings or Nitty Gritty Dirt Band have great sound though.

 

[NorthStar]

Ok, if you say. Still I have a bunch of Country music audiophile recordings.
I can name easily few dozens out of the blue. ...From Lyle Lovett, Alison Krauss, Emmylou Harris, Willie Nelson, Lucinda Williams, Mark Knopfler, Rosanne Cash, Steve Earle, Stacey Earle, Jorma Kaukonen, Kasey Cambers, Nanci Griffith, Patsy Cline, Jim Reeves, Aaron Neville, Patty Griffin, Bonnie Raitt, Rory Block, Eva Cassidy, Delbert McClinton, Mary Chapin Carpenter, Buddy & Julie Miller, Loretta Lynn, Bap Kennedy, Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison, Ray Charles, James Taylor, Chris Isaak.

...And many more.

 

[DaveyF]

Marc, I can think of absolutely no prog albums that have audiophile quality SQ.
Take a listen to the M&k LP...For Duke, and tell me if any of the prog albums even come close...SQ wise.
BTW, it’s not only prog that doesn’t come close, but rock SQ too. Yet, there really is no reason that some of these albums couldn’t have been recorded with that type of SQ....at least none that I know of.

 

[asiufy]

I have no complaints, most of my prog sounds good to great, and I'd much rather listen to those than "For Duke".
Problem with most rock albums are the excessive overdubbing and channel bouncing. Prog is excessive by design, so when all you had was 8/16 channels, there was a whole lot of bouncing going on. I believe Jack touched on this subject on a different thread, quite correctly.
That's why a lot of those new remixes sound great, in spite of being completely digital. When you remove all these tape generations and go back to the multi track tapes to remix, all the clarity is there. Not even the best sounding "Aqualung" can compare to the SW remix, in sheer transparency/clarity.
I know that album well, and I tell you, I've never heard it sound better than the SW remix through a SELECT DAC

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . an awesome recording is going to please a lot more people --even on an average system, than the typical marginal recording on a top high end system.

This seems to me to be nothing more than a big assumption, a guess. I do not know how you could possibly know this as a matter of fact a priori.

 

[the sound of Tao]

...except that not too rarely the 'typical marginal recording', as judged being this way on a less great system, turns out to be an excellent on a top high end system.

Its better if a system builds towards revealing what is best about a performance or a recording rather than just revealing all the limitations of the recording. So clearly limitations on performance aren’t a system factor but more an issue of listener taste and values there is a wisdom to have some latitude in your system design to allow for all the music you love to play.

I can’t take bad music or bad coffee... rather just sit in silence and drink water. Thankfully the music I love also has plenty of good recordings. Either way I do still think that having a everyday driver type speaker that makes enjoying more music and accessible because they aren’t the kind of speakers that point to all the faults but rather tend to showcase the best aspects of a recording (cue Harbeth) is sensible in the open spaces of a home.

Then go to town on a more revealing speaker for a dedicated listening space where you can have a more specific and focused play list. Plan strategically and enjoy the best of all worlds.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . my reservations about those uber top end systems is how poor than can make just less than average recordings sound.

. . .

I actually do not understand this. Why would "uber top end systems," as a species of systems, necessarily make poor recordings sound worse than less elaborate, non-uber systems?

MikeL's system does not do this. I would be disappointed if my future system has this flaw. I envision good "uber top end systems" as making poor quality recordings sound as good as those recordings can sound.

Poor quality recordings are poor, to me, when vocals or instruments sound thin or bright, when piano strikes sound muddy, when brass instruments instantly trigger a headache (like screeching bus brakes do to me), when there is no soundstage depth (likely due to a multi-track recording), when an analog recording basically sounds like a CD from the 1980s, etc. But I think a modest stereo can be too bright and can over-emphasize detail and can compress soundstage just as easily as can an uber system.