I haven’t been in a rush to discuss the final frontier of space because imaging and soundstage are hot buttons in the hi fi world, and the concept of “space” that I will describe here requires a total recalibration of the concept of space as it is widely accepted in the hi fi world. Before we talk about the final frontier, here’s an overview of what we have discussed so far in these threads: tonal balance/instrumental timbres and dynamics.
TONAL BALANCE/INSTRUMENTAL TIMBRE : Does the system or component present a believable balance of fundamentals to harmonics with the full range of instruments? Does the system reveal the timbral differences created by different instruments and their musicians?
To someone who knows the sound of live acoustic instruments in acoustic space, many of today’s contemporary “high-end audio” systems because of a combination of components, listening room acoustics, and speaker set up fall short of being tonally representative of live acoustic music. These systems also do not capture instrumental timbres on a level that is recognizable by someone who has live acoustic music as a reference point. A consequence of the hi fi approach is that too often we try to continue to find our musical truth by churning through components, or worse, we lose interest in hi fi entirely — at least for a time. A system that has been built upon the listening criteria for live acoustic music can reproduce all genres of music well and provide a pathway for further music exploration.
DYNAMICS: Does the system or component reveal dynamics expressively with all the gradations and transitions from very soft to very loud?
Provided a system achieves natural musical tonal balance, the system should be able to deliver the full spectrum of dynamic range. The “messy” midrange is packed with subtle loud-to-soft variations and transitions that are vital to our emotional connection with the music. Because choral, opera, and orchestral music recordings have the greatest dynamic range, these are the best types of recordings to judge dynamics. If a system falls short dynamically, it’s time to circle back to achieving the best tonal balance possible. Pop and rock recordings are not good sources on which to depend upon when judging or demonstrating a system or component’s dynamic capability because the tracks of nearly all of these recordings have been compressed to the point where subtle loud-to-soft variations no longer exist. In the mastering process of these more electronically produced recordings, lesser volume passages are increased in volume, and the louder volume passages are decreased in volume. The purpose is to allow the listener to play the music at realistically loud volume levels in a typical home audio system, but let’s not confuse “loud” with dynamics.
To review some of the specific issues I have already touched upon with respect to tonal balance/instrumental timbres and dynamics, refer to these threads:
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/how-hi-fi-has-become-a-standard-unto-itself.33565/
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/a-gold-standard-for-listening-evaluations.33693/
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/audiophile-rescue-plan-part-2.33973/
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/music-is-fundamental-to-almost-everyone.33831/
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/music-is-messy.34209/
Space is the final frontier. It helps us forget that we are only listening to a hi fi system because it helps us transcend space and time. Well-rendered musical space invites and allows us to connect with recorded music on an even higher emotional level, however, only if tonal balance and dynamics provide the emotional foundation to the music reproduction listening experience.
SPACE: Does the system or component recreate the ambience and scale of the original recorded music space to a believable level by revealing the direct sound of instruments and the reflected sound of fundamentals and harmonics within the performance space?
Hi fi sound does not believably reproduce the sound of acoustic instruments in space because it typically doesn’t capture the body and complex overtonal structure that is embedded on most recordings. Because these systems also do not capture the nuance of dynamic fluctuations in the middle frequencies, they limit our sense of instrumental presence in space because of reduced loud to soft volume boundary reflections. Much of what connects us emotionally with music resides in the mid-band where the essential musical qualities of fundamental tones, instrumental timbre, and harmonic richness reside. This is not news, but those who are looking for hi fi sound seem almost allergic to these “heavier” essential qualities that create a full sense of ambience and presence because they tend to obscure some of the hi fi artifactual details they are seeking. The standard is to seek pin-point holographic imaging and highly articulated higher frequency harmonics without an appropriate measure of fundamental tonal foundation or overtonal richness. The hi fi based imaging construct renders a sense of musicians playing holographically against a “black background”. Hi fi sound advocates want their systems to produce these tightly defined details, but at the expense of the far more abundantly rich, low-level details that are inherent to the live music listening experience.
The depth of image that many audiophiles seek is a totally different sound field concept from the depth that occurs with live acoustic music performed in a natural acoustic space. The hi fi model pushes the music in the midrange toward the back of a blank sound field. In a live acoustic music listening experience, we hear the sound field as a fully sound-pressurized space with fundamental and harmonic information reflecting in a seemingly chaotic fashion off performance venue’s boundaries. Our ears, naturally fine-tuned to time and spatial cues, are able to define the scale and characteristics of the performance space if everything is in balance — a far more exciting and engaging perspective than the hi fi standard. In a highly evolved home music listening system and listening room, we should be able to hear the fully sound-pressurized space of the performance venue as captured on the recording. If everything is right, the speakers should provide a direct reflection of the timing, space, frequency, and amplitude information received by a recording microphone. This speaker/microphone mirror can easily be assessed by listening to a recording that uses minimalist microphone placement with little post-production manipulation applied.
If we get tonal balance, instrumental timbres, and dynamics as close to right as possible in a home music system, a more realistic portrayal of the performance space is naturally a part of the listening package. It is nothing we need to try and achieve except for perhaps some fine tuning with speaker placement and acoustic room treatment.
Comparing the listening criteria outlined in these essays with hi fi language necessarily leads to questioning whether the hi fi terms should continue to exist. I’ve been doing this for decades, and I still can’t untie the Gordian Knot of hi fi lingo so that it makes sense to me from a music listening perspective.
I visited several threads recently where the term “resolution” was discussed. I found the term means very different things depending upon individual hi fi and music perspectives. In hi fi circles, “resolution” and “clarity” are often used interchangeably to assess whether a system is delivering sought after artifactual details that do not exist on the source material. Sometimes the hi fi use of the terms reflect a misguided aesthetic where much of the vital low-level music information such as timbral differences between instruments, harmonics, and harmonic reflections, and subtle dynamic nuances is stripped away, the very qualities music lovers want to hear.
As we have already discussed, achieving the hi fi concepts of soundstage and imaging essentially obscures or can even destroy much of the musical intent on the recording.
Could someone explain to me what the hi fi use of “rhythm”, “pace”, and “timing” means? I understand what the terms mean when describing different interpretations of the same piece of music. How can these terms apply to the sound of a hi fi system when one can hear the rhythm, pace, and timing of a piece of music on earbuds? What is it about high-end audio systems that make these qualities difficult to identify? Wouldn’t a system that was capable of delivering music with believable tonal balance, instrumental timbres, dynamic range, and space inherently be able to reveal the rhythm, pace, and timing of the music?
To be able to embrace the full measure of what music has to offer, we should take an interest in what live acoustic music sounds like and study how different instruments and artistic interpretations interact to create a fulfilling music listening experience. At the very least, take advice about audio components and system building from people who are musicians, have intimate knowledge of the live acoustic music listening experience, and have experience putting together home music systems that are a direct reflection of music-based listening criteria. If you don’t know whether the person offering advice or trying to sell you something has these credentials, ask to know more about the person’s or company’s expertise.
I’ve just run out of characters so stay tuned for the next thread.
TONAL BALANCE/INSTRUMENTAL TIMBRE : Does the system or component present a believable balance of fundamentals to harmonics with the full range of instruments? Does the system reveal the timbral differences created by different instruments and their musicians?
To someone who knows the sound of live acoustic instruments in acoustic space, many of today’s contemporary “high-end audio” systems because of a combination of components, listening room acoustics, and speaker set up fall short of being tonally representative of live acoustic music. These systems also do not capture instrumental timbres on a level that is recognizable by someone who has live acoustic music as a reference point. A consequence of the hi fi approach is that too often we try to continue to find our musical truth by churning through components, or worse, we lose interest in hi fi entirely — at least for a time. A system that has been built upon the listening criteria for live acoustic music can reproduce all genres of music well and provide a pathway for further music exploration.
DYNAMICS: Does the system or component reveal dynamics expressively with all the gradations and transitions from very soft to very loud?
Provided a system achieves natural musical tonal balance, the system should be able to deliver the full spectrum of dynamic range. The “messy” midrange is packed with subtle loud-to-soft variations and transitions that are vital to our emotional connection with the music. Because choral, opera, and orchestral music recordings have the greatest dynamic range, these are the best types of recordings to judge dynamics. If a system falls short dynamically, it’s time to circle back to achieving the best tonal balance possible. Pop and rock recordings are not good sources on which to depend upon when judging or demonstrating a system or component’s dynamic capability because the tracks of nearly all of these recordings have been compressed to the point where subtle loud-to-soft variations no longer exist. In the mastering process of these more electronically produced recordings, lesser volume passages are increased in volume, and the louder volume passages are decreased in volume. The purpose is to allow the listener to play the music at realistically loud volume levels in a typical home audio system, but let’s not confuse “loud” with dynamics.
To review some of the specific issues I have already touched upon with respect to tonal balance/instrumental timbres and dynamics, refer to these threads:
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/how-hi-fi-has-become-a-standard-unto-itself.33565/
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/a-gold-standard-for-listening-evaluations.33693/
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/audiophile-rescue-plan-part-2.33973/
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/music-is-fundamental-to-almost-everyone.33831/
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/music-is-messy.34209/
Space is the final frontier. It helps us forget that we are only listening to a hi fi system because it helps us transcend space and time. Well-rendered musical space invites and allows us to connect with recorded music on an even higher emotional level, however, only if tonal balance and dynamics provide the emotional foundation to the music reproduction listening experience.
SPACE: Does the system or component recreate the ambience and scale of the original recorded music space to a believable level by revealing the direct sound of instruments and the reflected sound of fundamentals and harmonics within the performance space?
Hi fi sound does not believably reproduce the sound of acoustic instruments in space because it typically doesn’t capture the body and complex overtonal structure that is embedded on most recordings. Because these systems also do not capture the nuance of dynamic fluctuations in the middle frequencies, they limit our sense of instrumental presence in space because of reduced loud to soft volume boundary reflections. Much of what connects us emotionally with music resides in the mid-band where the essential musical qualities of fundamental tones, instrumental timbre, and harmonic richness reside. This is not news, but those who are looking for hi fi sound seem almost allergic to these “heavier” essential qualities that create a full sense of ambience and presence because they tend to obscure some of the hi fi artifactual details they are seeking. The standard is to seek pin-point holographic imaging and highly articulated higher frequency harmonics without an appropriate measure of fundamental tonal foundation or overtonal richness. The hi fi based imaging construct renders a sense of musicians playing holographically against a “black background”. Hi fi sound advocates want their systems to produce these tightly defined details, but at the expense of the far more abundantly rich, low-level details that are inherent to the live music listening experience.
The depth of image that many audiophiles seek is a totally different sound field concept from the depth that occurs with live acoustic music performed in a natural acoustic space. The hi fi model pushes the music in the midrange toward the back of a blank sound field. In a live acoustic music listening experience, we hear the sound field as a fully sound-pressurized space with fundamental and harmonic information reflecting in a seemingly chaotic fashion off performance venue’s boundaries. Our ears, naturally fine-tuned to time and spatial cues, are able to define the scale and characteristics of the performance space if everything is in balance — a far more exciting and engaging perspective than the hi fi standard. In a highly evolved home music listening system and listening room, we should be able to hear the fully sound-pressurized space of the performance venue as captured on the recording. If everything is right, the speakers should provide a direct reflection of the timing, space, frequency, and amplitude information received by a recording microphone. This speaker/microphone mirror can easily be assessed by listening to a recording that uses minimalist microphone placement with little post-production manipulation applied.
If we get tonal balance, instrumental timbres, and dynamics as close to right as possible in a home music system, a more realistic portrayal of the performance space is naturally a part of the listening package. It is nothing we need to try and achieve except for perhaps some fine tuning with speaker placement and acoustic room treatment.
Comparing the listening criteria outlined in these essays with hi fi language necessarily leads to questioning whether the hi fi terms should continue to exist. I’ve been doing this for decades, and I still can’t untie the Gordian Knot of hi fi lingo so that it makes sense to me from a music listening perspective.
I visited several threads recently where the term “resolution” was discussed. I found the term means very different things depending upon individual hi fi and music perspectives. In hi fi circles, “resolution” and “clarity” are often used interchangeably to assess whether a system is delivering sought after artifactual details that do not exist on the source material. Sometimes the hi fi use of the terms reflect a misguided aesthetic where much of the vital low-level music information such as timbral differences between instruments, harmonics, and harmonic reflections, and subtle dynamic nuances is stripped away, the very qualities music lovers want to hear.
As we have already discussed, achieving the hi fi concepts of soundstage and imaging essentially obscures or can even destroy much of the musical intent on the recording.
Could someone explain to me what the hi fi use of “rhythm”, “pace”, and “timing” means? I understand what the terms mean when describing different interpretations of the same piece of music. How can these terms apply to the sound of a hi fi system when one can hear the rhythm, pace, and timing of a piece of music on earbuds? What is it about high-end audio systems that make these qualities difficult to identify? Wouldn’t a system that was capable of delivering music with believable tonal balance, instrumental timbres, dynamic range, and space inherently be able to reveal the rhythm, pace, and timing of the music?
To be able to embrace the full measure of what music has to offer, we should take an interest in what live acoustic music sounds like and study how different instruments and artistic interpretations interact to create a fulfilling music listening experience. At the very least, take advice about audio components and system building from people who are musicians, have intimate knowledge of the live acoustic music listening experience, and have experience putting together home music systems that are a direct reflection of music-based listening criteria. If you don’t know whether the person offering advice or trying to sell you something has these credentials, ask to know more about the person’s or company’s expertise.
I’ve just run out of characters so stay tuned for the next thread.