Music or hifi?

R

Robbo

Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
2,371
Reaction score
0
Location
Berkshire, UK
WM has a theory that at some point up the chain from low end to high end, there is a level at which systems stop making music and become too hifi. By this he means the detail/stage/tonal accuracy/refinement (the round earth aspects) become more pronounced than the dynamics/timing/groove (the flat earth aspects).

I though this was an interesting argument. Judging by the admittedly limited number of very high end systems I have heard, there may be something in this IMO.

Has anyone else experienced this?

Cheers Robbo
 
I would imagine that wouldn't happen with a very high end Naim system :D

I'm not sure where I stand on this. I think WM is quite quick to lump a lot of very high end gear (eg dCS) into the "HiFi, not music" category (sorry Tone!) but they must be doing something right! TBH I've never heard a seriously high end setup so I don't know.

I do know that when I stuck a Chord DAC64 into my system for a day it became a ton more musical. The way the music just reached out and grabbed you in an almost visceral way was quite startling :eek:

Michael.
 
I've sort of experienced the opposite. Moved up through various amps Nad3020,Nytech ca252, MF A1, Quad44 606, Quad77 707. The hifi traits have deminished and music traits have come to the fore.

What has also happened is that my desire to upgrade amps etc. has declined to the point where I'm no longer looking for the next upgrade fix. Thats not to say the Quads are the ultimate, but they are very satisfying to listen to over long periods [years]. Their presentation being WYSIWIG "what you see/hear is what you get" with no added bells and whistles, that some gear tends to add.
 
Having listened to some silly money gear down at JJ's i can understand where tony is comming from. however i did notice that the wallet puckering system we heard did large scale orchestral music in such a way that even i thought woah... maybe there';s somethign to this classical stuff. now if you are going to spend the best part of 100,000 pounds on somethign that plays music then you are going to be of a certain age and therefore less likely to be listening to banging techno or whitesnake. your priorities will be different and therefore you'll probably be happy with your massive spend even if it doesn;t make you feel like you are in the studio with stevie ray or ozzy or at a club with infected mushroom. it will take you to the royal opera house or the festival hall to hear handels water music or the ring cycle.
i think an increase in cost brings voicing and presentation that is more geared towards 'mature' tastes.
just my 2 1/2p
cheers

julian
 
It's ok, I understand, I will so far make exception to the Rule Spectral (when partnered correctly) it sings in a very musical fashion that is not only, detailed and spacious but groovy and spot on timing too.
Again this down to kit synergy, We are managing to get a more musical sound out of DCS gear, but by using componants that you would not normaly assoicate or even consider partnering with them.
However the total bias towards Tonal accuracy, Timbre, huge sound stages, amazing upper ferequency detail and large bass, but not musicaly involving (for a lot of people they may be emotional, the stringhead guys do seem to use that phrase a lot, and I'm not arguing), however they don't play True music as I've heard it played, is virtualy the domain of the high-end gear, you are playing for refinement, cleaniness of signal, that extra bit of blackness and 'welling up' of the sound
I'll site a few cases Graham N's trip to listen to the 805 sigs' the chap selling has an Audio Areo catipillo? Graham took his 861, the post went' Strike another for the 861' it wiped the floor with it?
JJ's Big demo room Mestispho CDP, serious open and casmic stage totaly hollographic image & realisum, both Julian and Jeremry sat total non-plussed, yes awe struck at the stage, but no musical connection, same upstairs, on the top floor, total uninterest.
Both sides are valid for everyones views, Naim seem have cracked the musical involvement, but for, me fall sort in other area's, I guess it's your choice sonic fireworks and openiness and reality, or Naim style presentation, fortunately they are alternatives, that can strike a balance, and do it very well, just to put a counter arguement across on this so you don't feel I've been to harsh towards those poor souls with ultra hifi, Lawrie from HFC/GH thought that the Wadia 860 was one of the most 'Dull' lifeless players he's every heard, just goes to show one man meat is another's poison.
I will say one other thing though, although guy's with 'Hifi' rigs I know, after visiting, have gone and changed something afterwards, what ever it was, they obviously thought some thing wasn't 'Quite right'. is that ok sir? can i go now, promise I won't be disruptive again honest :zzzz:
 
I think part of it is that mega buck systems are more likely to have earth shatteringly clear treble.

Perhaps a ribbon tweeter (I love these when done well), an electrostatic, a horn tweeter, or something of that ilk.

Perhaps again, this can accentuate leading note definition (quite impressing myself here - Im half tanked and still talking sense..ish) by wont of the fact that more treble detail is heard.

Im a wee smidge jealous of Henry's Epos ES11s, these were the first speakers I ever owned, and they do the clarity card like nothing for the money. I went that route again later in life with some AE1's.

Maybe theres a bit in all of us that wants the ultimate definition of clarity that comes with studio monitors and speakers of a certain type.

Cheers
Chris
 
The statement that very good hifi is bad from the musical point of view seems, at first, silly.

Yet, I concede there is some truth in it. This is because the recording engineers don't always have high-end stuff in mind.

Also, in recording sessions, instruments are usually too closely recorded, and they tend to produce a harsh sound.

With correctly recorded acoustic music, however, and - I agree - with ribbon tweeters or horns - you get the brightness to sound what they are: bright, not unbearable, and the better the gear the better the siound and the music.

The best gear I listened to was very expensive indeed and, ambiance apart, it managed to almost create the illusion of being there.

Bear in mind I'm always referring to classical music. I played some pop and orchestral rock CDs in my system and they all seemed horribly harsh - for instance, Diana Krall's voice sounded surrounded by hash and Tory Amos was unlistenable. Also Genesis was horrible.

As that is the lot of my current pop culture, I may have got the wrong impression.

But still, I think the better the gear you have - not necessarily the most expensive (Tag McLaren is expensive and is not particularly good, Lavardin or Meridian are not very expensive and they are excellent) the better results you get.

A final consideration to distortion. Most gear produces some kind of distortion. This may, in certain cases, spice sounds up (that is why pianos and organs are not tuned exactly right, so as to introduce beats that make the sound a little more alive).

If your experience of music comes mainly from rock concertos or recordings, you may have grown to love distortion. And, in that case, really hifi gear will sound dull, too clean, clinical and dead. But in that case, that's an acquired habit: it means you like music with distortion, and not that hi gear is bad.
 
If your experience of music comes mainly from rock concertos or recordings, you may have grown to love distortion. And, in that case, really hifi gear will sound dull, too clean, clinical and dead. But in that case, that's an acquired habit: it means you like music with distortion, and not that hi gear is bad.
Click to expand...

A decent system should accurately reproduce the distortion already present with the recording and not add to it, and not take anything away from it. If those guitars sound raw, then the system should reproduce them as raw, if those brass instruments sounded abrasive and menacing, the system should do justice to that.

A decent hi-fi system should not sound anodyne, kill pain, or induce slumber; it should tell the truth and the whole truth without sounding overly cold or analytical. The musical, i.e: emotional message of the recording should remain intact.
 
Steven

A good Naim system may not be pure Hifi but it communicates music like no other.

Hifi and music are not the same and you cannot have both.

We each have our own priorities and we choose what we want.

I want music so i choose Naim.

Regards

Mick
 
.A decent system should accurately reproduce the distortion already present with the recording and not add to it, and not take anything away from it. If those guitars sound raw, then the system should reproduce them as raw, if those brass instruments sounded abrasive and menacing, the system should do justice to that.

A decent hi-fi system should not sound anodyne, kill pain, or induce slumber; it should tell the truth and the whole truth without sounding overly cold or analytical. The musical, i.e: emotional message of the recording should remain intact.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100% steven.

Perhaps there is also a correlation with the type of music you like. a lot of classical buffs have 'hifi' sounding systems which to me can sound rather dull and lifeless (excluding Graham Ns system here), but people who like rock/pop would choose a system that majors on timing/dynamics life etc.

Personally, I see no reason why you cannot have both and there are systems around which give you a good amount of each (ahem, mine actually).

Cheers, Robbo
 
I agree pretty much with Robbo and Stephen - and MP is just doing his usual s**t-stirring. BTW thanks for the compliment Robbo - and I can assure you that its now a lot more lively, open, dynamic, detailed and smooth :cool: than when you last heard it (but maybe a bit bass-light for you).

The first high-end system I heard (Metronome CDP, Lamm pre and monos, WB speakers) was seriously underwhelming - I really couldn't see what the fuss was about - no scale and dynamics (10W SET valves), but the real surprise was that it was detailed without being clear :confused: ! I also wasn't too impressed with JJ's megabuck system. Yes it was beautifully clear - but to my ears the top end had a really thin a wispy quality - so you got a beautifully accurate presentation of the fact that you were listening to speakers. (Chris' comment is also interesting, as - despite a predisposition to do so - I've still to hear a ribbon tweeter speaker I like).

At the kind of levels many of us are here, I think the limiting factor becomes dominantly one step along the food chain from the source, i.e. the mastering. CDs (or LPs) are mastered to sound good on some particular piece of kit - usually something much less revealing than what we are talking about. As such it will have certain features overemphasised to cut through the target system weaknesses. When put through higher level kit those emphases will come out and hit you - making the music sound artificial. Note that this is not bad mastering - just targeting for a different audience - and due to the number of Walkmans, midi and in-car CD systems would most likely affect CD more than LP.

It also probably affects classical less than more popular music (apart from anything its dynamic range makes it quite difficult to listen to in the car), which is why we may go for more hi-fi type systems. And as Robbo has said, the tonal balance and fine detail is far more important to most of us than is the ultimate in leading edge or pace - but it you can get both then so much the better.

I've not got any CDs from audiophile labels such as Reference Recordings (they tend not to capture the great performances), although there is an RR version of my favourite Bruckner 4 (Wand/BPO live), it would be interesting to hear that through a top-notch system.

(It would also be interesting to hear the views of Skalamboukas or some of his members on this subject)
 
So confused

Graham

I have read through my post and cannot see any evidence of s**t stirring. I was foolish enough to write down my point of view.

I realise I have mentioned music, hifi and Naim so I am guessing that is what upset you.

I promise not to mention music and hifi ever again. Would it upset you if I mention Naim again. I am only trying to please you.

Yours

Mick
 
Re: Steven

Originally posted by mick parry
Hifi and music are not the same and you cannot have both.

[and]

I want music so i choose Naim.
Click to expand...

Not the most emollient statements you must admit. I have absolutely no problem with you preferring Naim, and it may well do a good job for you, but the you say that Naim is the only (or best) manufacturer to produce music - which if not manifestly untrue is a gross over-generalisation. I grant you that in a certain context your post could also be a Naimee self-charicature, but somehow I doubt it.

(BTW - I'm not upset, just disappointed - and not going to pursue this further)
 
I now give up

Graham

I did say

"We each have our own priorities and we choose what we want."

So I have acknowledged we all have different tastes.

So I cannot see why you are complaining.

Regards

Mick
 
Re: I now give up

Originally posted by mick parry
We each have our own priorities and we choose what we want.

I want music so i choose Naim.

So I have acknowledged we all have different tastes.
Click to expand...
You acknowledged different tastes but in a rather loaded way :rolleyes: Your implication is those who prefer systems other than Naim don't have music as a priority. I dare say that a number of people with non-Naim systems have music as a high priority and also find their systems very musical, quite probably more musical than they find Naim systems. People clearly have different interpretations of "music" and "hifi".

Michael.
 
WM has a theory that at some point up the chain from low end to high end, there is a level at which systems stop making music and become too hifi. By this he means the detail/stage/tonal accuracy/refinement (the round earth aspects) become more pronounced than the dynamics/timing/groove (the flat earth aspects).
Click to expand...

I think there is a lot of truth in this. As with most things in life I have a bizarre theory or twoââ'¬Â¦

First off Hi-Fi manufacturers are in no way altruistic organisations intent on giving the general public access to any form of musical truth. They are commercial concerns intent on shifting as many boxes as possible. The way to shift a box to Joe punter is to try and make it sound more impressive than the competition or the box below in the companies own range. This is an inherent problem. I personally find much modern audio kit is deliberately voiced to sound way too impressive, I absolutely hate the over-brightness of most modern speakers - far too many people confuse too much top end with detail. This makes sense commercially; say you are trying to get some poor punter to fling 600 quid out on a bit of wire then that bit of wire has to sound massively different from a cheaper one ââ'¬â€œ if you make it sound radically different then hi-fi being hi-fi someone will probably love it. It is essential that this difference can be grasped in a short dem too, so it has to be pretty extreme.

Most modern hi-fi presents a grossly exaggerated, unmusical and unnatural sound to my ears. I honestly think most of it is crap.

Another factor is that the further up any given manufacturers range one climes the more concentrated the brand viewpoint becomes ââ'¬â€œ a customer has risen this far by buying into a certain ideology and perception of a given ââ'¬Å"rightnessââ'¬Â of the manufacturers presentation, i.e. a hugely expensive Naim system is far more ââ'¬Å"Naimââ'¬Â than their entry level kit. Lets take Naim as one extreme and say Musical Fidelity at the other ââ'¬â€œ Naim punters want a fast, tight, tuneful and dynamic sound, Musical Fidelity punters want huge lush soundstages and the sense of being in a cavernous hall with the orchestra. The further up each manufacturers range the more of this ââ'¬Å"house soundââ'¬Â you get. I find high end audio far more polarised in presentation than mid range kit. It could easily be argued that the further up any range you move the more character-full the presentation becomes. Character is not an especially desirable trait in audio.

Tony.
 
Well... I have to say that in general my experience is the opposite to tonys.. IME.. more mid-priced/budget systems overhype the presentation making them sound more immediate and exciting that they should. A really good system doesn't reach out and grab you.. it wows you with it's subtlety.. Raw guitar should sound raw of course.. but I would submit that 90% of people don't know what a distorted guitar should sound like.... unfortunately concerts don't count as they've been put through a PA system. I'm talking about listening to the guitar through it's own amplification/speaker combo or rack. The same goes for drums, bass etc etc. I've yet to hear a guitarist set up his axe and combo set up with a sound that it unlistenable to no matter what kind of distortion/equipment they use... yet I have heard many systems that make distorted guitar sound unbelievably rough...and almost completely unlistenable to. Without a point of reference most people would probably erroneously come to the conclusion that that's how a distorted guitar should sound... I've seen comments on these forums that cymbals are big metal plates.. and so that's how they should sound... sorry but that's just NOT true.. (unless you're talking about cheap budget cybals which do sound just like dustbin lids being hit with a mallet).

Having said all that I do think that once you get in to the real "high end" territory what you really get are systems that sound like their designers "think" good systems should sound .. and these systems do tend to start diverging from "true" hi-fi. In that they just present the "personal preference" of the designer. eg.. I like my Roksan TT .. but when I once listened to a full Roksan system.. I found it very bright and lean sounding .. and it wasn't something I could have lived with.. it certainly wasn't accurate.


Edited to add - Tony L beat me to it.. but pretty I pretty much agree with his comments.. though not his comment about MF products..(Iv'e certanly heard far more lush/cavernous sounding systems by other manufacturers).. but I should state it's been over 8 years since I listened to any new equipment so things have probably changed since then.

GTM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Steven Toy
A decent system should accurately reproduce the distortion already present with the recording and not add to it, and not take anything away from it. If those guitars sound raw, then the system should reproduce them as raw, if those brass instruments sounded abrasive and menacing, the system should do justice to that.

A decent hi-fi system should not sound anodyne, kill pain, or induce slumber; it should tell the truth and the whole truth without sounding overly cold or analytical. The musical, i.e: emotional message of the recording should remain intact.
Click to expand...

I never said that shouldn't be so. I just meant that people who tend to listen mostly to already distorted music seem to like distortion per se.

That's why most people think that high end gear (when it is good) is lifeless -- it doesn't add distortion, just the one there is on the recording.

What I mean is people have an acquired taste for distortion. When the system doen's add that distortion, they call it lifeless.

And then as I also noted, most recordings are planned to sound good in midfi gear.

These are two different problems.

The only way to adress the question of the fidelity of a system is to compare it with th original sound. Now the original sound has usually been tampered with by the recordings engineers. And there isn't an original sound in many electronic music. So all you can do is compare acoustic music and its reproduction.

In this particular case, I think music sounds best when there is little added distortion. But you must be used to listen to live music, otherwise you are just comparing the sound of the system to which you are listening at the moment and the memories of other systems.

By the way, that is why I pay so little attention to hifi reviewers. For instance, there is no such think as a quick bass in acoustic music. Bass notes must have their time for the string or air column to vibrate. Often, when one condemns a system for being slow, it is just being accurate... I mean, hifi reviewers are just comparing kit to other kit, not appraising the ability of a system to reproduce a true sound.

That said, there are high end systems that sound awful; but then there are budget systems that sound good. I'm no«t takjing about price, although there seems to exist a correlation between quality and price.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top