Both are important. Realistic timbre is a precondition to distinguishing differences among instruments.
Problems with believability in audio
- Thread starter morricab
- Start date
Both are important. Realistic timbre is a precondition to distinguishing differences among instruments.
I have a set of Acoustat Spectra 11 hybrid electrostatics that reproduces the dynamic envelope quite respectfully, and the impactfulness of its modified conventional bass modules do well vs the live sound of bass instruments.
I have often surmised that the no-holds-barred performance of my BGW 250D, and its seemingly perfect match to these speakers may be a contributing factor.
When I exchanged a Signet TK7e cartridge and Grace 707 II tonearm for a Shelter 201 and Micro Seiki MA-101 MKII, the timbre and harmonics became noticeably more realistic.
I use these with a Micro Seiki BL-51 (with gunmetal record weight), and a so-called EAR phonostage clone with select vintage tubes.
Completely the opposite of what I heard in 2 friends' systems I know well and another at SWAF. All 3 systems completely different systems. Organic, smooth, detailed, life - like. Competes with higher $ DACs in the ~$25K range.
Focusing on #1: "The problem of visual images can be described as a key difference between concerts and music at home. With a concert, there is a visual presentation happening that is generally missing in the home environment. There are questions about why and whether this is important, but in most of the audio world it goes undiscussed and unaddressed, particularly when the focus is on music with high quality recording." Tom Martin blog.There is a new think piece in "The Absolute Sound" that discusses what the author views as the 6 major problems in getting what he refers to as "believable" audio.
The Six Major Problems of Audio Believability - The Absolute Sound
The Six Major Problems of Audio Believability - The ability to render music that has a known sound believably is a benchmark for understanding how well audio systems will work across a wide range of musical types.www.theabsolutesound.com
This reminds somewhat of the old TAS where Harry Pearson would muse upon what made audio sound more realistic. What this article does is lays out the issues, what it doesn't do is attempt to address them with solutions.
This allows us members of WBF to debate these topics without any preconception from the author...other than we may not agree that all of these points are problems with believability in audio or that some that are important are missing.
The author starts with a statement about what audio is for, listing three points: 1) Enjoyment of music, 2) A quest for a system that makes believable music and 3) Appreciation of Progress
Of these three stated objectives for audio, I resonate strongly with the first two, meaning the enjoyment of music and a quest for a believable system are definitely reasons I am in the hobby. The third point to me is interesting but increasingly as I have personally journeyed in audio I find that there is not so much actual progress towards believability in reproduction (perhaps even some regressions in that regard) as there has been in a purely technical grounds. Yes, we have more advanced electronics, materials, circuits speaker designs etc. ...but how do they relate to the goal of audio believability? I was once believing that more advanced circuits, parts, materials and designs...all driven to reduce measurable distortions of various types, would lead to the greatest believability in audio reproduction.
The problem, as the author points out, is that this hasn't really been the case. I would argue that in some really key areas (some of his 6 problems below) audio had actually regressed compared to the best historical systems.
One interesting point made by the author is that without a reference the pursuit of the points above basically have no direction and what I see is people pursuing enjoyment and a quest without a reference. What ends up happening then is the endless pursuit of different and endless gear swapping.
The 6 points are as follows:
1) The problem of visual images
2) The problem of recording standards
3) The problem of spatial imaging
4) The problem of bass in real rooms
5) The problem of dynamics
6) The problem of digital distortions
He states that the first two are basically out of our control although I guess you could beam videos of concerts in your living room to kind of address point 1. Point 2, you just have to be selective of good recordings, which is generally reached by a consensus of aficionados. It is clear that poor and even decent recordings do quite a bit of damage to believability.
Problem 3, the problem of spatial imaging to me is probably more problematic than most would like to admit. Without knowing what the real event sounded like (or if in fact there was a real soundstage and not just manufactured in the studio) I think it is less critical that it is accurate than if it just seems palpable and believable (like the sax player or vibe player is there in the room with you in 3d ). Where most systems struggle here is in terms of image density and 3 dimensionality. Do they have volume like real musicians in a room would have? Most systems paint a rather flat caricature of this, even if they place them well in a deep/wide soundstage. After just coming back from Munich, most systems, regardless of cost, fail to convince that the images are living, breathing musicians.
Problem 4, the problem of bass in a real rooms is maybe less of a barrier to believable sound because real instruments in that same room (at least bass instruments) SHOULD have similar problems if they are located approximately where the speakers would be located in that room. Of course you can't fit large ensembles in a small room nor would you want a rock band in your room, which would like sound pretty bad.
Problem 5, The problem of dynamics is also what I consider to be one of the biggest problems with believability. Most systems are woefully underrepresenting dynamics and it is one of major reasons for the renaissance of horn speakers...which were virtually dead 30 years ago. You can hear most non-horn speakers compressing even if you don't really realize it...mostly because that is just what you are used to. Real dynamics are purely the domain of high sensitivity speakers because of the physics behind thermal and dynamic compression. Speakers of mid-80dB sensitivity are already compressing significantly from moderate volume levels. This then doesn't allow for the natural dynamic envelope to be expressed. Some very large dynamic and panel speakers do this kind of OK (the Sigma MAAT is a good example) because they have somewhat high sensitivity due to large radiating surfaces. Speakers under about 95dB sensitivity will never achieve the same dynamic expression of their more sensitive brethren, IMO.
Problem 6, The problem with digital distortions. This is a difficult one as most people these days are primarily digital. That said, again in Munich it was often with a sense of relief when a room would switch from digital to analog. I know this will draw fire, but the ubiquitous use of WADAX players was for me a digital catastrophe. I remember many years ago going around the Munich show and taking note of the gear in the rooms that sounded good to me. One year I noted that the Audio Aero La source was a common feature in the rooms that sounded good. This player and the La Fountaine were very musical and seemingly pretty low in the kinds of digital distortions that interfere with believability. I noticed a similar analog trend a few years ago, when several rooms had adopted the Kronos Pro turntable....those rooms tended to sound very musical compared to other rooms also running analog. What I have noticed with WADAX is that room after room sounds "synthetic" or as my wife put it "electronic" sounding. There is something missing in the dynamics and a sheen to the sound. I don't care how great they measure (if they in fact measure that great) what I hear from them doesn't sound believable. Ultimately, I have stayed with classic R2R chip based DACs (BB PCM 63 and 1704, AD 1865 etc.) and tube output stages because, although clearly worse measuring, they simply sound more believable to me based on what I hear with live, unamplified music. It doesn't matter if they are SLIGHTLY lower resolution or don't have as much air...they simply sound more real to me...in the way that good analog sounds more real.
What are your thoughts? Would like to have some other's thoughtful feedback...
How is this a "problem"? IMO this falls outside the expectation and experience with 2 channel listening. It's like highlighting the problem of depth looking at a smiley face on a sheet of paper.
Number 3 is particularly amusing since this tells me that the author is ignorant of the best systems of the '50's and '60's.
I don't understand what visual images has to do with anything. I don't play my stereo for a visual result.
What does spatial mean? Soundstage?
For soundstage and transparency* I find planar dipoles with tube electronics most convincing.
*I am using the standard definition of transparency.
I have not seen the video. Sounds like these are relative comparisons similar to your previous vs current DAC comparison. I thought Brad's point was that while some DACs offer more than other DACs,
While he referenced a particular component brand, he also talked about a sense of 'relief' when a room switched from DAC to analog. This may not be the case for everyone but I experience that phenomenon myself -- it is real for me -- analog is more believable to me. It is not entirely disimilar from Brad's related experience of immediately recognizing live music. I'm talking about the experience or sense of recognition in itself -- the immediacy of the experience. (Not saying one is the other.) Of course I have not heard that many DAC based systems, but the experience is pretty consistent. Not a matter of the ergonomics of using a point and click system, sonics only.
Presumably there are people (many?) who do not have the experience that I have.
Imo, for those into believability (which is not about the silly suspension of disbelief) the apt comparison is not between two components but between a component and live acoustic music. I suspect many audiophiles are not into that because it doesn't help with a purchase choice.
This is my experience too, though I have had exceptions. They are rare.
I think this depends on one’s goals. I think one could try to decide between two different components by asking myself which one sounds more like his memory of live music. Then the comparison is between the component and live music rather than the two components against each other.
Am I the only audiophile whose sole sonic criteria when evaluating two components with vocals is: Does it sound more like or does it sound less like a live person is singing to me?
Last edited:
It is definitely not universal. I think digital people will testify that they don't experience such relief when moving from digital to analog
Those who are married to digital are the new Borgs of audio denial.
I assume that timbre is what Morricab was referring to, as opposed to frequency response (which is obviously different).
We can see (hear) this time and again, with speakers that have either a limited frequency response, or some level of frequency response deviations, but will sound realistic/natural/pleasant.
Here's an example (from WaveTouch Audio's channel - he unfortunately no longer contributes here, so any questions will remain unanswered):
The speakers are obviously limited (no lower bass), but I find the sound to be very relaxing. The system itself should not be discounted: Oppo CD drive and Bakoon amp. There seems to be a good level of transparency.
But I believe there is something about the frequency response that explains the quality of what I hear and appreciate. I would like to know exactly what it is!
Yes, one's goals, which is why I said 'for those who are into believability'. And yes, the memory of live music is what we have to work with -- which implies a memory built across time based on familiarity with live acoustic music -- attending concerts or playing an instrument.
I suppose there could be memory of live synthetic music. Kraftwerk concerts, etc. Theremins. So much contemporary music -- what you hear a lot of at shows -- is composed with a keyboard and played with a synthesizer and a drum machine ... maybe your cousin's sister singing in a booth. ;-)
Brad,There is a new think piece in "The Absolute Sound" that discusses what the author views as the 6 major problems in getting what he refers to as "believable" audio.
The Six Major Problems of Audio Believability - The Absolute Sound
The Six Major Problems of Audio Believability - The ability to render music that has a known sound believably is a benchmark for understanding how well audio systems will work across a wide range of musical types.
This reminds somewhat of the old TAS where Harry Pearson would muse upon what made audio sound more realistic. What this article does is lays out the issues, what it doesn't do is attempt to address them with solutions.
This allows us members of WBF to debate these topics without any preconception from the author...other than we may not agree that all of these points are problems with believability in audio or that some that are important are missing.
The author starts with a statement about what audio is for, listing three points: 1) Enjoyment of music, 2) A quest for a system that makes believable music and 3) Appreciation of Progress
Of these three stated objectives for audio, I resonate strongly with the first two, meaning the enjoyment of music and a quest for a believable system are definitely reasons I am in the hobby. The third point to me is interesting but increasingly as I have personally journeyed in audio I find that there is not so much actual progress towards believability in reproduction (perhaps even some regressions in that regard) as there has been in a purely technical grounds. Yes, we have more advanced electronics, materials, circuits speaker designs etc. ...but how do they relate to the goal of audio believability? I was once believing that more advanced circuits, parts, materials and designs...all driven to reduce measurable distortions of various types, would lead to the greatest believability in audio reproduction.
The problem, as the author points out, is that this hasn't really been the case. I would argue that in some really key areas (some of his 6 problems below) audio had actually regressed compared to the best historical systems.
One interesting point made by the author is that without a reference the pursuit of the points above basically have no direction and what I see is people pursuing enjoyment and a quest without a reference. What ends up happening then is the endless pursuit of different and endless gear swapping.
The 6 points are as follows:
1) The problem of visual images
2) The problem of recording standards
3) The problem of spatial imaging
4) The problem of bass in real rooms
5) The problem of dynamics
6) The problem of digital distortions
He states that the first two are basically out of our control although I guess you could beam videos of concerts in your living room to kind of address point 1. Point 2, you just have to be selective of good recordings, which is generally reached by a consensus of aficionados. It is clear that poor and even decent recordings do quite a bit of damage to believability.
Problem 3, the problem of spatial imaging to me is probably more problematic than most would like to admit. Without knowing what the real event sounded like (or if in fact there was a real soundstage and not just manufactured in the studio) I think it is less critical that it is accurate than if it just seems palpable and believable (like the sax player or vibe player is there in the room with you in 3d ). Where most systems struggle here is in terms of image density and 3 dimensionality. Do they have volume like real musicians in a room would have? Most systems paint a rather flat caricature of this, even if they place them well in a deep/wide soundstage. After just coming back from Munich, most systems, regardless of cost, fail to convince that the images are living, breathing musicians.
Problem 4, the problem of bass in a real rooms is maybe less of a barrier to believable sound because real instruments in that same room (at least bass instruments) SHOULD have similar problems if they are located approximately where the speakers would be located in that room. Of course you can't fit large ensembles in a small room nor would you want a rock band in your room, which would like sound pretty bad.
Problem 5, The problem of dynamics is also what I consider to be one of the biggest problems with believability. Most systems are woefully underrepresenting dynamics and it is one of major reasons for the renaissance of horn speakers...which were virtually dead 30 years ago. You can hear most non-horn speakers compressing even if you don't really realize it...mostly because that is just what you are used to. Real dynamics are purely the domain of high sensitivity speakers because of the physics behind thermal and dynamic compression. Speakers of mid-80dB sensitivity are already compressing significantly from moderate volume levels. This then doesn't allow for the natural dynamic envelope to be expressed. Some very large dynamic and panel speakers do this kind of OK (the Sigma MAAT is a good example) because they have somewhat high sensitivity due to large radiating surfaces. Speakers under about 95dB sensitivity will never achieve the same dynamic expression of their more sensitive brethren, IMO.
Problem 6, The problem with digital distortions. This is a difficult one as most people these days are primarily digital. That said, again in Munich it was often with a sense of relief when a room would switch from digital to analog. I know this will draw fire, but the ubiquitous use of WADAX players was for me a digital catastrophe. I remember many years ago going around the Munich show and taking note of the gear in the rooms that sounded good to me. One year I noted that the Audio Aero La source was a common feature in the rooms that sounded good. This player and the La Fountaine were very musical and seemingly pretty low in the kinds of digital distortions that interfere with believability. I noticed a similar analog trend a few years ago, when several rooms had adopted the Kronos Pro turntable....those rooms tended to sound very musical compared to other rooms also running analog. What I have noticed with WADAX is that room after room sounds "synthetic" or as my wife put it "electronic" sounding. There is something missing in the dynamics and a sheen to the sound. I don't care how great they measure (if they in fact measure that great) what I hear from them doesn't sound believable. Ultimately, I have stayed with classic R2R chip based DACs (BB PCM 63 and 1704, AD 1865 etc.) and tube output stages because, although clearly worse measuring, they simply sound more believable to me based on what I hear with live, unamplified music. It doesn't matter if they are SLIGHTLY lower resolution or don't have as much air...they simply sound more real to me...in the way that good analog sounds more real.
What are your thoughts? Would like to have some other's thoughtful feedback...
No system is flat and all systems have depth and good image and I think problem 3 and 4 depends on room speaker intraction so just Stirling Trayle can help to solve these two problems.
I think few audiophiles know about how important is room speaker intraction.
I agree problem 5 is related to audio equipments, many audio companies trade off dynamics for more compress/sharpness to impress audiophiles because audiophiles prefer feeling of transparency.
I disagree with you, large panels are not dynamic, also we have some 90db speakers with good dynamics, yes I agree most higher efficiency speakers are more dynamics but there is some exceptions.
I think your are wrong about digital distortion, digital is very very sensitive to SNR and AC power quality and ground loops and … Wadax is very good digital player and I had three different r-2r dac and compared it to many non r-2r dacs so I think digital distortion has the least relation to the difference of r-2r vs non r-2r dacs.
The r-2r vibes to me are just marketing hype.
Tube Nos dacs with tube output stages all have problem in bass extension and I had 63k AN dac5.
Wadax in a proper setup will give you proper bass and dynamics with great depth and transparent window.
I think Only CEC/weiss and CEC/wadax in this market are perfect in bass reproduction
Last edited:
I disagree with you, mola mola never improved digital playback, they just lowered the noise and you see cheap china made dacs (like topping) even have lower noise than mola mola.
Audio is not just lowering noise .
Last edited:
My three basic rule for audio regardless of equipment performance:
- room speaker interaction (speaker position by styrling trayle)
- ac power quality
- amplifer speaker matching
After these three conditions then you can decide what you want :
- impressive sound for short listening sessions
- musical sound for long listening sessions
If you prefer musical sound then “dynamics” are very important. Here experts can help
- room speaker interaction (speaker position by styrling trayle)
- ac power quality
- amplifer speaker matching
After these three conditions then you can decide what you want :
- impressive sound for short listening sessions
- musical sound for long listening sessions
If you prefer musical sound then “dynamics” are very important. Here experts can help
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |