I see. I thought you were declaring something as a speaker manufacturer about a specific amplifier brand. I see that this is only your opinion. I look forward to you sharing videos once you get the FM electronics to drive your speakers.
Problems with believability in audio
- Thread starter morricab
- Start date
I see. I thought you were declaring something as a speaker manufacturer about a specific amplifier brand. I see that this is only your opinion. I look forward to you sharing videos once you get the FM electronics to drive your speakers.
Me too but this will be my most costly purchase by far lol.
Hence my post for other amp designers to speed up their efforts and make more accesible " musical stuff ".
Instead of shiny lifeless room decoration
Last edited:
What does this mean? You just said FM is the most expensive gear you ever bought, so its not accessible
Even if it is fed from a digital source? And yes, I have read from Manuel Hubert since the 90's!
Do you think that their current electronics sounds better than the FM Acoustic old classics , such as the FM411 and FM811?
Last edited:
Its manuel Huber .
I have no idea how they compare to the current models
The latest demo with i think the latest version of the 1811 monos was fantastic .
If the " Deaf" hifi reviewer industry lol would have put me earlier on the FM track i could have bought them when they were still kinda affordable instead of me buying Boulder ML and Krell.
The FM 411 is still a current model although its now a Mk 3 .version
A second hand 245 /F 111 will cost me second hand as .much as a new medium class automobile
I have no idea how they compare to the current models
The latest demo with i think the latest version of the 1811 monos was fantastic .
If the " Deaf" hifi reviewer industry lol would have put me earlier on the FM track i could have bought them when they were still kinda affordable instead of me buying Boulder ML and Krell.
The FM 411 is still a current model although its now a Mk 3 .version
A second hand 245 /F 111 will cost me second hand as .much as a new medium class automobile
Last edited:
I used to pair CAT with Boulder and ML class A back in the day, sounded pretty good, Krells sound more mechanical to me.
Thank you for your kind and helpful words.
What I was trying to say was to say was that I think the article falls short in not explicitly defining believability.
I’d like to think that I should have a reasonable idea of what a live acoustic instrument can sound like because I have played a lot of fingerstyle guitar. Yet I would not be confident to say that there is a unique characteristic live sound. Surely, it all depends on the nature of the space and the particular instruments involved. I got my favourite acoustic guitar sound playing outdoors.
When it came to recording, it proved quite hard to capture the natural sound of a guitar. Good results could be obtained by pointing one mic at the body of the guitar and another on the fretboard for example and mixing these two channels. The sound on the recording is always dependent on the choice and position of the microphones. Then there is the thorny question of whether to compress or add reverb, etc.
Therefore, I’d argue that recordings can only ever be a fake copy of the sound of the original instrument. Furthermore, most recordings are not even attempting to emulate the natural sound of acoustic instruments, but rather to create something entirely original.
On reflection, I was probably being too pedantic in my comments. Whilst it may be impossible for recordings to exactly sound like live music, it is possible to emulate some of its features. Thus the problems of believability listed in the article are about trying to make the sound more impressive and convincing, not exactly copying live sound. I stand corrected.
FMA is a legend and for many people it is a cult brand just like JMF/Kinoshita, their amps are considered even better, I used the FM tri-amping set in combination with Westlake Audio, I thought that would be the end of the search for real sound but one day amps and loudspeakers Klangfilm came to my house and I stayed with these old junk 
of course it's my choice, someone else will stay with FMA
I had hundreds of amplifiers, today I have over twenty tube, SS and D-class
I haven't found a recipe for real sound, I don't even look anymore
I listen to what pleases my ear,
probably some recordings sound close to something we call real sound according to our audio fantasies
of course it's my choice, someone else will stay with FMAI had hundreds of amplifiers, today I have over twenty tube, SS and D-class
I haven't found a recipe for real sound, I don't even look anymore
I listen to what pleases my ear,
probably some recordings sound close to something we call real sound according to our audio fantasies
Yes, as many others in this hobby. I appreciate the idea and comfort of a cult high-end brand, but one of my main criteria in this hobby is transparency and most (not all) cult brands are terrible opaque.
Micro
Every year (FMA) they give a free 3 day demo with all their gear at various pricepoints how much more transparent do you want it to be .
Or is your idea of transparency a component that is reviewed by a magazine (basically a marketing / advertizing business) and you can read about it in the comfort of your own home
Last edited:
M
My Problem is not that they are cult…it’s that their demo in th Marriott every year doesn’t sound very good.
I must say I care little about the sound of show demos and just read opinions on them for entertainment and information about the systems being used - audiophiles are curious ...
FM Acoustics have stayed in the business for 50 years, keeping the same basic principles and way of staying in business. It is enough to win my respect. In the 90's a good friend of mine was their representative in my country and sold some gear that I could listen. He choose to move out of the high-end business after a short time - probably if he had kept in business and I had the money I would own FM Acoustics ... Just dreaming and remembering that for me this hobby is also a social activity.
Thank you for your follow-up.
My understanding of the article is that it posits “believable musical performance” as a goal but goes on to say "Such a goal is one that, arguably, cannot be fully achieved... ."
That in itself does not tell us what is "believability" or what counts as "believable musical performance."
I don't think the article defines believability or has that as its intent. Belief in itself seems, imo, an act of faith or conviction. Perhaps it is a psychological condition or state about accepting something that is beyond strict empirical or logical proof. "I believe in ..."
It goes on to say "we use the sound of real music and real musical instruments (the absolute sound) as the reference standard." That can be understood as what I'll call the object of belief for the author -- what he/we are gauging our belief against.
So ... we are listening to our stereos ... at what point or under what psychological conditions do we say "what I'm hearing leads/causes me to find the reproduction sufficient to convince me I'm hearing the sound of "real music"?
I would answer "never". And, per the quote above, the article seemingly agrees inasmuch as it says that can never be achieved. Reproduction is not the reality of the thing reproduced.
But ... such is the goal and some hold fast to that goal despite knowing/believing it will always be only a goal, unobtainable. Absent that, what is one's goal? Pleasure or enjoyment may not require believability. Martin says "“It sounds good” is too vague to be a useful observation." Whether it is a sufficient goal is up to the listener.
That in part is why I talk about haing a composite or template of sound built up through multiple experiences. I agree there is not singular characteristic that define live sound, however I know it when I hear it and don't hear it. Having played multiple pianos and listened to many live pianists, I know what a piano sounds like and what it does not sound like. When I hear a recorded piano my composite helps me gauge if what I'm hearing sounds more or less like real piano sound.
I would say facsimile rather than "fake copy". While a recording is original, I don't believe originality is a primary goal.
I agree that the article talks about the "problems of believability" as the issues associated to making reproduction more convincing, or not hindering belief.
My understanding of the article is that it posits “believable musical performance” as a goal but goes on to say "Such a goal is one that, arguably, cannot be fully achieved... ."
That in itself does not tell us what is "believability" or what counts as "believable musical performance."
I don't think the article defines believability or has that as its intent. Belief in itself seems, imo, an act of faith or conviction. Perhaps it is a psychological condition or state about accepting something that is beyond strict empirical or logical proof. "I believe in ..."
It goes on to say "we use the sound of real music and real musical instruments (the absolute sound) as the reference standard." That can be understood as what I'll call the object of belief for the author -- what he/we are gauging our belief against.
So ... we are listening to our stereos ... at what point or under what psychological conditions do we say "what I'm hearing leads/causes me to find the reproduction sufficient to convince me I'm hearing the sound of "real music"?
I would answer "never". And, per the quote above, the article seemingly agrees inasmuch as it says that can never be achieved. Reproduction is not the reality of the thing reproduced.
But ... such is the goal and some hold fast to that goal despite knowing/believing it will always be only a goal, unobtainable. Absent that, what is one's goal? Pleasure or enjoyment may not require believability. Martin says "“It sounds good” is too vague to be a useful observation." Whether it is a sufficient goal is up to the listener.
That in part is why I talk about haing a composite or template of sound built up through multiple experiences. I agree there is not singular characteristic that define live sound, however I know it when I hear it and don't hear it. Having played multiple pianos and listened to many live pianists, I know what a piano sounds like and what it does not sound like. When I hear a recorded piano my composite helps me gauge if what I'm hearing sounds more or less like real piano sound.
I would say facsimile rather than "fake copy". While a recording is original, I don't believe originality is a primary goal.
I agree that the article talks about the "problems of believability" as the issues associated to making reproduction more convincing, or not hindering belief.
You are stating the obvious here:
- reproduction will never sound like the real thing
- we know that because we have all heard "the real thing"
If that's all that can be said about audio, then we may as well not say anything
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |