Do you require spatial cues for emotional engagement? Or are they for analytical listening?

Blue58 · Sep 23, 2018

spiritofmusic said:
I've just returned from Barry/Blue58 visit.

An amazing sense of space from his system (Aqua Formula XHD dac, SGM server, Java pre, 45 tube amps, AG Duos horns).

A total treat to hear digital finally hold it's head up w the best analog re spatial cues and flow.

There's no doubt for me it absolutely enhances the listening experience to hear space around vocal lines, reverb on instruments, studio cues, effortless depth.

Especially on digital to now start to match the best analog has to offer.
Only brings positives, not negatives.

Other aspects of the presentation from systems like hyper resolution of detail, one can argue for and against.

But for this listener at least, I've never been more entranced by digital, and the greater space I hear at Blue's is key to this.

Thanks Marc, only drawback is this highly resolving system reveals those poorly recorded or mastered albums for what they are and some can be pretty painful. What was that Rush album you played? sounded like a cheap cassette.

Mightily impressive was Leon Bibb singing ‘Look over yonder’ . I can tell you that his voice wasn’t 3-4inches wide,

Cheers
Blue58

spiritofmusic · Sep 23, 2018

Well of course Barry, if you're REALLY after space off brilliantly recorded and mastered albums, you're going to have to buy some Deccas from the 50s, and play them on a Vyger.

microstrip · Sep 23, 2018

spiritofmusic said:
I've just returned from Barry/Blue58 visit.

An amazing sense of space from his system (Aqua Formula XHD dac, SGM server, Java pre, 45 tube amps, AG Duos horns).

A total treat to hear digital finally hold it's head up w the best analog re spatial cues and flow.

There's no doubt for me it absolutely enhances the listening experience to hear space around vocal lines, reverb on instruments, studio cues, effortless depth.

Especially on digital to now start to match the best analog has to offer.
Only brings positives, not negatives.

Other aspects of the presentation from systems like hyper resolution of detail, one can argue for and against.

But for this listener at least, I've never been more entranced by digital, and the greater space I hear at Blue's is key to this.

Nice to read you are finally discovering something some of us have telling since long ... Can I ask what were the recordings you listened in this session?

microstrip · Sep 23, 2018

tima said:
Yes, excellent comments - thanks for that. There is no black background at a live performance. Perhaps a bit in a highly damped recording studio, but not with a piano on a stage. Think Horowitz in Moscow or at Carnegie when the crowd is hushed.

The envelope of atmosphere, the sense of an orchestra in a hall, back and side wall reflections, the cloud of harmonics, the undergirding strength of the rhthym section - in the world of musicians making music as you say the real presence unique to the venue not the system soundstage construct.

Audiophiles normally do not use the "black background" to refer to noiseless background - they use it to mean that there are no electronic artifacts that mask the real presence unique to the venue existing in the recording. It is used because most of the time the classical signal to noise ratio measurement is misleading concerning this aspect.

RogerD · Sep 23, 2018

spiritofmusic said:
I've just returned from Barry/Blue58 visit.

An amazing sense of space from his system (Aqua Formula XHD dac, SGM server, Java pre, 45 tube amps, AG Duos horns).

A total treat to hear digital finally hold it's head up w the best analog re spatial cues and flow.

There's no doubt for me it absolutely enhances the listening experience to hear space around vocal lines, reverb on instruments, studio cues, effortless depth.

Especially on digital to now start to match the best analog has to offer.
Only brings positives, not negatives.

Other aspects of the presentation from systems like hyper resolution of detail, one can argue for and against.

But for this listener at least, I've never been more entranced by digital, and the greater space I hear at Blue's is key to this.

Yes digital can reveal a tremendous amount of information and be extremely realistic. A DDD recording in my estimation can sound less colored than a analog digital transfer even though there is a fine line here. As far as what makes a recording stand out, which I would say is realism and a multi dimensional presentation digital recordings can reach the limit of what is possible in a recording. No artifacts and equal to the original noise floor of the production chain. A uncompressed, uncongested presentation with great clarity
and dimensionality.

spiritofmusic · Sep 23, 2018

Francisco, I'll let Barry list the recordings we listened to.

I was v impressed w the Zubhin Mehta Planets Suite we listened to, and on a more contemporary note, some Nils Frahm.

ddk · Sep 23, 2018

microstrip said:
Audiophiles normally do not use the "black background" to refer to noiseless background - they use it to mean that there are no electronic artifacts that mask the real presence unique to the venue existing in the recording. It is used because most of the time the classical signal to noise ratio measurement is misleading concerning this aspect.

Not really Micro, Black is a color and a strong one too. For me it means unnaturally filtered and/or masked, replaced, etc. Also it’s a term often used by wire companies making some of the most colored soundkilling powercords out there.

david

tima · Sep 23, 2018

microstrip said:
Audiophiles normally do not use the "black background" to refer to noiseless background - they use it to mean that there are no electronic artifacts that mask the real presence unique to the venue existing in the recording. It is used because most of the time the classical signal to noise ratio measurement is misleading concerning this aspect.

Perhaps. I admit to being sceptical of sentences that begin: "Audiophiles normally...". :-o.

Consider Ivan Fischer's Mahler series on Channel Classics. The absence of context is almost eerie. Is that the absence of electronic artifacts or a noiseless background?

microstrip · Sep 23, 2018

tima said:
Perhaps. I admit to being sceptical of sentences that begin: "Audiophiles normally...". :-o.

Consider Ivan Fischer's Mahler series on Channel Classics. The absence of context is almost eerie. Is that the absence of electronic artifacts or a noiseless background?

I see your point - I was considering "black background" as a playback system characteristic, not as a characteristic of the recording.

tima · Sep 23, 2018

microstrip said:
I see your point - I was considering "black background" as a playback system characteristic, not as a characteristic of the recording.

I suspect we're faced with both. Contrasted with live recordings in a hall, there are studio recordings with more and less spatial characteristic, more and less sense of atmosphere and ambience. Then there is equipment that is more or less 'open' - that's the best word I could use at the moment - less open being equipment that brings some sort of filtering into play, sometimes, as David suggests, to the detriment of the presentation. Your discussion seems directed at the masking effect.

I understand noise as something in or on the signal that is not part of the 'native' signal off the source (though the source itself may contribute to that noise.) It may be from the power grid, it may be introduced by audio equipment. A variety of gear, mostly stuff like cables and power conditioners, claim to reduce or eliminate noise. Selective filtering in certain frequency ranges where (so the theory goes) there is not music information. But, to what extent is natural soundstage information, along with what provokes awareness of atmosphere and ambience, in or out of a filter's range? Does the filter take life out of the music?

Then there's masking not by subtraction but addition. To what extent does a component or system contour or shape spatial and presence characteristics? To the extent that it does, we get the system's 'house sound' as it were, an homgenizing effect. Reviews talk about this all the time: X brought a deeper soundstage than Y. Is that because X got out of the way of such information or added to it.

If you are desirous of spatial characteristics for emotional engagement, will you accept a piece of gear that delivers such characteristics independently of what is on the recording, or gear that enhances the spatial characteristics you enjoy? For me, no.

This is all tentative and I feel I like I'm exploring, not sure to what extent it makes sense. Apologies if this angle takes the thread too off track.

Blue58 · Sep 24, 2018

microstrip said:
Nice to read you are finally discovering something some of us have telling since long ... Can I ask what were the recordings you listened in this session?

Hello Microstrip,

Marc asked me to reply to your question.
First off, all music was upsampled to either 705/768Khz unless DSD into the Aqua Formula.

Nils Frahm, Sunson from All Melody (96/24) Density of tone from electronic notes and how they 'pop' in the room.
Kenny Burrell, Midnight Blue from midnight Blue (DSD256) Liquidity of guitar, brush strokes.
Leon Bibb, Look Over Yonder from A Family Affair (44/24) Amazing vocal projection with no breakup, he's in the room!
Rush, Subdivisions from Signals (48/24 MQA) Sounded like a cassette recording to me, shows how poor recordings sound.
John Coltrane, Nature Boy from Both Directions at Once (192/24) Still grappling this one, but good group playing.
Charles Lloyd & The Marvels, Unsuffer Me from Vanished Gardens (48/24) Wonderful drum sounds, dynamic dense sax.
Mehta/LAPO, Jupiter from The Planets (DSD256) Bombast and orchestra spread, perhaps Previn even better.
Holly Cole, You've got a Secret from Steal The Night (44/16) Clarinet soars and double bass clean and clear though a little prominent.
Amos Lee, Don't Fade Away from My New Moon (44/16) Modern sounds with space, bass and upfront vocals.
Genesis, Dancing with The Moonlit Knight from Selling England by The Pound (44/16) Good old romp with twists and turns, timing.
Genesis, Visions of Angels? from Trespass (44/16) Older recording that sounds brighter than it should.
Agnes Obel, Familiar from Citizen of Glass (44/24) Space galore and great voices.
London Grammar, Hey Now from If you Wait (44/24) Modern hifi staple now but getting boring.
Weather Report, Boogie Woogie Waltz from Sweetnighter (44/16) I think we played this, good recording for its age. Great timing.

so that's all I can remember and as you can see a variety of styles and original format, some streamed from tidal, some from locally stored high res (DSD256 available from HDTT). I've added brief note on each re. standout impressive qualities.

I enjoy the system, soundstage width restricted due to room width, 9ft, but plenty of depth, dynamics and detail. It communicates emotion very well and can boogie with the best. A few upgrades to come in the coming months including the EVO upgrade for the SGM2015 and new IEC plugs.

keep well
Blue58

microstrip · Sep 24, 2018

Blue58 said:
Hello Microstrip,

Marc asked me to reply to your question.
First off, all music was upsampled to either 705/768Khz unless DSD into the Aqua Formula.

Nils Frahm, Sunson from All Melody (96/24) Density of tone from electronic notes and how they 'pop' in the room.
Kenny Burrell, Midnight Blue from midnight Blue (DSD256) Liquidity of guitar, brush strokes.
Leon Bibb, Look Over Yonder from A Family Affair (44/24) Amazing vocal projection with no breakup, he's in the room!
Rush, Subdivisions from Signals (48/24 MQA) Sounded like a cassette recording to me, shows how poor recordings sound.
John Coltrane, Nature Boy from Both Directions at Once (192/24) Still grappling this one, but good group playing.
Charles Lloyd & The Marvels, Unsuffer Me from Vanished Gardens (48/24) Wonderful drum sounds, dynamic dense sax.
Mehta/LAPO, Jupiter from The Planets (DSD256) Bombast and orchestra spread, perhaps Previn even better.
Holly Cole, You've got a Secret from Steal The Night (44/16) Clarinet soars and double bass clean and clear though a little prominent.
Amos Lee, Don't Fade Away from My New Moon (44/16) Modern sounds with space, bass and upfront vocals.
Genesis, Dancing with The Moonlit Knight from Selling England by The Pound (44/16) Good old romp with twists and turns, timing.
Genesis, Visions of Angels? from Trespass (44/16) Older recording that sounds brighter than it should.
Agnes Obel, Familiar from Citizen of Glass (44/24) Space galore and great voices.
London Grammar, Hey Now from If you Wait (44/24) Modern hifi staple now but getting boring.
Weather Report, Boogie Woogie Waltz from Sweetnighter (44/16) I think we played this, good recording for its age. Great timing.

so that's all I can remember and as you can see a variety of styles and original format, some streamed from tidal, some from locally stored high res (DSD256 available from HDTT). I've added brief note on each re. standout impressive qualities.

I enjoy the system, soundstage width restricted due to room width, 9ft, but plenty of depth, dynamics and detail. It communicates emotion very well and can boogie with the best. A few upgrades to come in the coming months including the EVO upgrade for the SGM2015 and new IEC plugs.

keep well
Blue58

Thanks for your listening impressions - they communicate much more than just an abstract comment. Selling England by the Pound is a particularly difficult recording for high resolution digital - it always sounded much better in my systems in vinyl. How does the The Carpet Crawlers sound in your system?

Sometimes I feel that having listened hundreds of times to these Genesis albums with Peter Gabriel in vinyl during my youth, I am now assuming that the sound of vinyl is part of the music.

Blue58 · Sep 24, 2018

Hi Microstrip,
Haven’t heard Carpet Crawlers for a while so must ‘spin’ that tonight. I think I’m using a Japanese CD rip as source for it.
You touched on a salient point re youthful memories and I think those aural memories of vinyl are intertwined with the music and so a revealing master can often sound so different it may not be a preferred rendition.

Cheers

spiritofmusic · Sep 24, 2018

Guys, I think I can provide a bit of perspective.

My "Selling England..." vinyl is 1980s version, I've just laid out a big sum to acquire a 2001 Classic Records Quietex 200g reissue that is v highly regarded.

And the Tidal version I heard at Barry's is the 2008 Nick Davis remaster/remix. This mix has been criticised for being too hot, treble detail in particular overly intrusive.

I found Barry's Tidal presentation fascinating in laying out Phil Collins' cymbal work in a much less subtle, more prominent way. I actually really liked it, and it seemed less hot than a similar NDavis 2008 remix of "Trick Of The Tail" on CD.

I put less of this down to streaming, and more down to the quality of Barry's new dac, the Aqua Formula XHD.

What was particularly fascinating was the amount of air and depth around PGabriel's vocals as the track kicked off, I've never heard this anywhere near as good off vinyl.

Now there's a certain amount of apples and oranges here, my vinyl is from the quieter, less hot original pre-2008 mix, the version I heard was the more in yr face one.

Certainly that extra realism on the vocals and greater cymbals resolution made the experience highly enjoyable.

On listening to my vinyl 3 hrs later,
I couldn't help feeling that Id got to know this track all over again.

But there were still some elements off my vinyl that were on balance superior including tonal heft and bass texture, and some keyboard flourishes that despite being fully audible via Tidal, just felt less meaningful than off my vinyl.

Swings and roundabouts.

But as a representation of the enjoyment wrought from greater air and space, Barry's Aqua dac makes the greatest argument for digital pre eminence here I've heard, by a large margin, and only IMHO will the very best analog truly beat it here. And maybe not by much.

analogsa · Sep 24, 2018

For some peculiar reason the seventies prog rock never made a convincing transition into digital. The Steve Wilson's remixes, when available, help but sound too different. The rest is mostly ludicrously inferior to the original first pressings. If this music takes a substantial percentage of one's musical diet there is just no substitute to vinyl. All imho of course.

spiritofmusic · Sep 24, 2018

Analogsa, I'd have been w you 100% up until the recent day.

But Blue' s system is making the most convincing case yet to change my mind.

However even Barry admits that w my 1000 prog/jazz rock albums, a rig like his will be too uncompromising w a big proportion of flat and terse sounding material.

I found Genesis "Trespass" in the same listening session just a little too upfront and relentless. But air and space was still there, more than my vinyl.

Even the infamous Rush "Vapor Trails" w it's cut and paste Pro Tools production, comprised of hundreds of takes and snippets brutally stitched together like a surgeon trying to operate in oven gloves, STILL had an acoustic that Blue's digital eeked out. Just.

Folsom · Sep 24, 2018

ddk said:
Like Bob said, music without artifice. There’s a difference between system created space which is always a constant in size, contrast and presence on every piece of music and in competition with it vs a more natural one changing from recording to recording. The system should disappear and not impress and distract from the music with hifi paraphernalia. Beyond the stage and imaging is the ambience, the noise, the envelope the atmosphere or whatever you want to call it is the real presence unique to the venue, that’s my final frontier and goes a long way towards what I feel as natural. There are too many wires and widgets designed to rob you of the experience with filteration calling it noise control by masking and replacing the natural with their homogenized artifact. Unacceptable!

david

While I don't necessarily condone with artifice word, or "artifact" for all situations... I know what is being said by Bob and DDK. For me a really well mixed stage is fun, but not necessary. I believe the best stereos don't even require you to sit in the sweet spot except to get the last 5-10% of some of the sound, and nearly all of whatever soundstage stuff it has (but the character of the recording space can be read largely without being in sweet spot). But that's me. Others clearly get the experience from the best soundstage possible, with the most 3D possible sound.

RogerD · Sep 24, 2018

Folsom said:
While I don't necessarily condone with artifice word, or "artifact" for all situations... I know what is being said by Bob and DDK. For me a really well mixed stage is fun, but not necessary. I believe the best stereos don't even require you to sit in the sweet spot except to get the last 5-10% of some of the sound, and nearly all of whatever soundstage stuff it has (but the character of the recording space can be read largely without being in sweet spot). But that's me. Others clearly get the experience from the best soundstage possible, with the most 3D possible sound.

Agree, the sweet spot should expand as the complete stereo image increases in a multi dimensional presentation(as the stereo image projects further into space),but also the depth and side imaging is not distorted.

RogerD · Sep 24, 2018

I don’t see how a system cannot be multi dimensional and be perfected, the two go hand in hand. Increase audio signal integrity by removing current leakage and EMI,the system becomes more efficient. I don’t care if it is done from the main panel or at the source which is anything that is powered and carries signal. The whole presentation becomes more realistic not with standing how the recording was engineered start to finish.

And clearly the most efficient way is to remove it at the source. By targeting the source you effect the speaker which is a air pump and the dispersion characteristics are greatly enhanced.

Anything that is done to mitigate the effects of leakage and EMI whether by better design or engineering or isolation wil increase signal integrity. Think cables,isolation,capacitors,crossovers,grounding ect.
Remove these corrupting influences by 99 pct and see what happens. Most have done this to a lesser degree with improved SQ. Once the cause is understood then real gains can be achieved.

Gregadd · Sep 24, 2018

caesar said:
I'm not talking about interplay of musicians....

If the system makes me focus on how "big the stage is", or if I think about imaging, I snap out of the state of flow. And my MBL system is excellent at the spatial elements of stereo sound...

Yet for me it's all about tone, dynamics, and PRAT to communicate emotion.

And for you?

this not nearly an easy question to answer is it appears at first blush.
My knee jerk answer is the more realistic a system is in every area the more easy it is to become emotionally involved. However some characteristics are more hi-fi than musical. Especially for us audiophiles our attention can be distracted from the music by hi-fi characteristic.s, good or bad. I suppose then I would aya yes as long as they_(spatial clues) are not so dramatic they, draw my attention away from the music.

Do you require spatial cues for emotional engagement? Or are they for analytical listening?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert

VIP/Donor

Industry Expert

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

WBF Founding Member

Similar threads