On the subject of HiFi

Subjects that don't have their own home
chris661
Shed dweller
Posts: 2556
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:29 am
Location: Sheffield

#1 On the subject of HiFi

Post by chris661 »

A bit of a philosophical discussion, I suppose, on the subject of "HiFi", realism in audio, etc.


I gave up on the concept of HiFi a while ago, for a few reasons:

- The first is technical. It's my opinion that there are simply too many filters between us and the musicians to get a truly accurate impression of the sound that was first produced. A short list and discussion below:

-- Mic choice - microphones sound different. Even mics of similar types. Below is a link where you can download some clips that I've recorded. There are three mics (two of which are a similar type and format), positioned as close together as possible, for the same performance. Which one is the "accurate" one?
https://gearspace.com/board/so-much-gea ... 30-vs.html

-- Mic placement. Simply moving the mic a few inches either way, on something a radiationally-simple as a speaker, can produce dramatically different sounds:
Now imagine trying to capture something complex, like a saxophone or cymbal. There's no "accurate" mic position, but some sound nicer than others.

-- Mic preamp. Some are clean and offer up to 80dB of gain with minimal colouration of the signal. Others deliberately run transformers into saturation to achieve a more pleasing, but less "accurate" sound. Both sorts are in high demand in the recording industry.

-- Often, now, the signal would be converted to digital, and brought into a computer for an engineer to work on. At minimum, you're looking at a compressor and EQ on every channel. Further deviations from accuracy! Not to mention all the other options like cutting together different takes to pull together a complete song, software that emulates specific analogue gear, software that emulates changing the mic position on a guitar amp, software that emulates guitar amps, auto-tune, etc etc etc. The list is basically infinite, and every bit of processing takes us further from realism.

-- Next, the concept of actually "mixing". If one source is acoustically quieter than another (say, comparing vocals to drums), then it would be inaccurate (in terms of realism) to be able to hear the singer when the drummer is bashing away.



The other reason I gave up on realistic sound is this: I realised that I don't want it. Simply put, it's too damn loud. I don't want to press Play on Back In Black by AC/DC, to have a couple of roadies show up and start setting up some Marshall stacks and a big drum kit, not to mention the debate over whether or not we should give Brian a mic (which mic?) & speaker (which speaker?) so he can be heard over the rest of the band.

I enjoy a wide range of music, and some of that music was recorded at higher sound levels than I'd ever want to be exposed to. I'm not going to simply stop listening to it because I can't/won't reproduce it at the levels that were originally present.


All of the studio-related processing I complained about above, then, is actually a benefit to my enjoyment. I can hear a balanced representation of the music I enjoy. Does Brian Johnson sing louder than a Marshall stack? Nope. Do I still get to hear him on one of my favourite albums? Yep!

Give me compression, give me EQ, give me mixing. Give me non-realistic sound that I can enjoy.


I'm aware that some will disagree, and that's fine. We all have our own paths. I hope this clarifies the thinking behind mine.

Chris
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15708
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#2 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by Nick »

All of the above is true (of course), but I am not certain it matters. Remember that when the concept of HiFi was invented, the fidelity was with respect to a orchestra or some such classical performance. And that certainly can be recorded with a high degree of accuracy, where accuracy means WRT the sound that a member of the audience would hear sitting in a seat in the hall.

The same is also true in the case of a small Jazz combo or for that matter a big band.

Once you consider amplified sound and individual microphones and or DI, then things change as you describe. But that doesn't make the part after the recording has been made any less worthwhile (or not).
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
IslandPink
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 10041
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 7:01 pm
Location: Denbigh, N.Wales

#3 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by IslandPink »

chris661 wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:25 pm
The other reason I gave up on realistic sound is this: I realised that I don't want it. Simply put, it's too damn loud.
Thanks for your thoughts Chris.
i was wondering, reading between the lines on the other thread, if your problem with 'realistic sound' was loudness.
My concept of 'realistic sound' does not require it to be loud, certainly not as loud as modern gigs. Also, all lot of what I listen to was never played loud or recorded to capture it being loud, either. So I think that this is one reason we disagree.
"Once you find out ... the Circumstances ; then you can go out"
chris661
Shed dweller
Posts: 2556
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:29 am
Location: Sheffield

#4 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by chris661 »

Nick,

I'm not even sure that an orchestra can be recorded with accuracy. Mic positions are typically 10+ feet in the air, often positioned just behind the conductor - that doesn't seem like a realistic listening position, but it does seem to be the place where microphones deliver the most pleasing results.

Further, which mic(s) and stereo technique should be used?

Coincident (XY, mid-side) sounds different to spaced mics, with near-coincident attempting to get the best-of-both. Here's an example of spaced vs mid-side:


Both sound good, but is either of them "accurate"?


Chris
chris661
Shed dweller
Posts: 2556
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:29 am
Location: Sheffield

#5 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by chris661 »

IslandPink wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 6:20 pm Thanks for your thoughts Chris.
i was wondering, reading between the lines on the other thread, if your problem with 'realistic sound' was loudness.
My concept of 'realistic sound' does not require it to be loud, certainly not as loud as modern gigs. Also, all lot of what I listen to was never played loud or recorded to capture it being loud, either. So I think that this is one reason we disagree.
Fair enough, Mark.

I'm off out in a mo, and will respond more fully when I can. The short version is that I don't want my stereo to dictate my musical tastes/collection, so having something that only works for smaller-scale and/or quieter music doesn't work for me.

In the mean time, I'd encourage you to have a listen to the clips linked in the first post. They're as raw and unprocessed as it gets - might be interesting to listen to.

Chris
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15708
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#6 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by Nick »

Yes, so I agree that if two different things sound different then at least one of them is wrong. However I do think you are guilty of introducing the strawman of "accuracy" when the subject is HiFi. Its High fidelity, not perfect or absolute fidelity. I agree the question is then fidelity to what, but given the subject is HiFi I am not so sure that is important. Also consider that at the point the phrase was introduced it had real meaning, and I would suggest it still does in the context of simple Alexa type sound sources in use today.

I do also agree that realistic is a problematic word for the same reason, for example I have never heard a realistic recording of a trumpet or drum kit, but I am not sure that renders the entire field invalid.

I would compare with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

But with this I am entirely with you. And its the thing that has most directed my limited striving in the field.
The short version is that I don't want my stereo to dictate my musical tastes/collection, so having something that only works for smaller-scale and/or quieter music doesn't work for me.
But again, I am not sure anyone said otherwise.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
shane
Social outcast
Posts: 3403
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:09 pm
Location: Kept in a cool dry place.

#7 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by shane »

I guess it comes down to trying to define what hi-fi actually is and what it’s for.

Ask a lot of people that, and I suspect most of them would subscribe to the old Quad dictum of The Closest Approach To The Original Sound. As Chris says though, the problem comes when you try to define what the original sound is.

If you’re talking about Eva Cassidy sitting on a stool with a guitar, the definition is easy. I want to close my eyes and believe that she’s sitting across the other side of my sitting room. That of course is impossible, but some systems get closer to it than others, and those that do I would regard as higher fi than those that don’t.

But then,take the case of a Symphony Orchestra playing, for the sake of argument, Saint-Seans’ Organ Symphony. Do I want a close approach to the original sound? No, because if it was possible it would be totally overwhelming, so instead I find myself wanting a different sort of musical experience, one where I can analyse and appreciate the contributions of the various musicians and their instruments and the subtleties of the interplay between them, whilst still getting a flavour of the the original complete performance. It’s still trying to create a cohesive experience but it’s no longer aiming for closest approach to the original sound.

And then, what happens if I want to listen to, say, the Edgar Broughton Band? The original sound as far as I’m concerned was four sweaty blokes on a stage transporting 500 equally sweaty long-haired hippy kids, mostly half-pissed or stoned, to another existence by creating a totally immersive occasion of which the sound is the driving force, but that sound in isolation is only a tiny part of the experience. Trying to recreate that sound in my sitting room would be disappointing, and the more accurately you reproduce it the more disappointing it would be because in truth, the actual sound itself was awful. What stays in my mind fifty years later isn’t the sound, it’s the occasion, and you’re never going to reproduce that.

So what am I looking for if I want to listen to something like Broughton or Klaus Schulz or Tomita? Then, the highest fi is the system which creates the most intense experience. The one that puts the rhythms together most convincingly, the one that sends shivers down my spine, the one that creates tension in the air before that crashing guitar chord that i know is coming. It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with reproducing the original sound. It’s about creating the most enjoyable experience from the recorded material, which is a different thing all together.
The world looks so different after learning science. For example, trees are made of air, primarily. When they are burned, they go back to air, and in their flaming heat is released the flaming heat of the Sun which was bound in to convert air into tree.
User avatar
ed
retired
Posts: 5384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm
Location: yorkshire
Contact:

#8 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by ed »

chris661 wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 5:25 pm A bit of a philosophical discussion, I suppose, on the subject of "HiFi", realism in audio, etc.


I gave up on the concept of HiFi a while ago, for a few reasons:

- The first is technical. It's my opinion that there are simply too many filters between us and the musicians to get a truly accurate impression of the sound that was first produced. A short list and discussion below:

I sort of agree, having felt very smug in the past when explaining the merits of some of my diy exploits when listening to my recordings. At times I got close enough to please myself and other more discerning musicians. It is a privileged position but does lend itself to pouring scorn on those armchair critics that patently don't know what they're talking about...did I sound pretentious!!!

anyway, to my limited point.....after I had covid last January I spent about a month convinced that the main system was distorting and going off the rails...insanity loomed until I realised that the only way to truly listen to something that you know hasn't had some kind of studio distortion applied was to consistently listen to orchestral classical stuff...even some of my own stuff had me worried at times....

Happily the distortion thing has passed but it did remind me that with modern studio stuff it is not the easiest medium to pass judgement on the efficacy of the so called hifi system.

edit sorry Shane I was typing when you posted so there may be overlap.
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
Cressy Snr
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 10552
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:25 am
Location: South Yorks.

#9 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by Cressy Snr »

My own hi-fi aims and objectives are dead simple. The aim is neutrality and the objective is that the system should play everything from acoustic recordings of Caruso all the way through to today’s audiophile recordings without fuss and without favouring one kind of music or recording era over the other.
There might be two opinions on this:
1. My system is transparent to the source material and allows me to enjoy the music whatever the recording quality.
2. My system is just mid-fi and allows me to enjoy the music whatever the recording quality.
My own opinion is that the system fits statement no 2, but that’s fine.

For example the 6W SE valve amp with feedback is only something that might have been in one of the higher quality stereo radiograms from the 1960s. It’s unpretentious and gives a straightforward, honest sound. With the Mission mini towers, it plays everything.
The NVA based solid state amp is similarly unprepossessing and also gives a straightforward, honest sound and with the Mission minitowers, it too plays everything. However it is a bit more solidly grounded, dynamic and makes a bigger noise.
If one blew up, I could live with the other one.

The valve amp is entirely DIY and I worked my arse off with calculator, scope and sig gen to get it to sound the way I wanted it to. It has no pretence of being anything other than workmanlike but it sure enough communicates.

The solid state amp is not entirely DIY. I did add networks beyond the output stages in order to improve HF stability under signal drive and increased the feedback levels. It has twin power supplies and a built in phono stage, but the boards up to and including the output transistors are almost entirely RD’s design (different Fb resistor values being the only deviation from stock) The phono board and associated reg are entirely down to RD.

The system gets used for several hours a day. There is zero listening fatigue and I enjoy everything I play on it, no matter what the quality of the recordings may be. It fulfils my wants-list of what a decent music system should be able to do. It’s at the point where it’s ‘good enough.’ My idea of ‘good enough’ might be someone else’s ‘mediocre’ but that’s not a problem.
Sgt. Baker started talkin’ with a Bullhorn in his hand.
User avatar
Greg
Social outcast
Posts: 3198
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:14 am
Location: Bristol, UK

#10 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by Greg »

Cressy Snr wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:05 pm The solid state amp is not entirely DIY. I did add networks beyond the output stages in order to improve HF stability under signal drive and increased the feedback levels. It has twin power supplies and a built in phono stage, but the boards up to and including the output transistors are almost entirely RD’s design (different Fb resistor values being the only deviation from stock) The phono board and associated reg are entirely down to RD.
So that was RD’s DIY. All kit is somebodies DIY.
User avatar
izzy wizzy
Old Hand
Posts: 1496
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:02 pm
Location: Auckland NZ
Contact:

#11 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by izzy wizzy »

My HiFi is much like Shane's wish list. I want the experience to remind me of live while not being totally accurate whatever that is coz accuracy is a myth. In some of my recordings, I like little messing with the sound; old Mercurys, RCAs, Deccas etc from the late 50s. Likewise jazz from that period. At semi realistic levels too. Yes it can be a bit overwhelming but that is also part of it for me if in the mood.

At the other extreme, I also like dance music, Trance, Techno etc and like it sometimes at club levels (well not the bleeding ear levels of Ministry of Sound Box room). Nothing is more unreal than that genre or messed about with more.

That's a wide range of music and I need my HiFi to delived that without strain and by showing difference between all these recordings so with as little flavour (within reason) that colours the experience in a way that bugs me. What keeps me hooked to this hobby is inching, sometimes very slowly to the sound in my head that makes the music I play move me emotionally.

I just want to switch it on and enjoy my music whatever it is at any level I wish.
User avatar
Ray P
No idea why I do this anymore
Posts: 6294
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 5:18 pm
Location: Somerset

#12 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by Ray P »

izzy wizzy wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:33 am I just want to switch it on and enjoy my music whatever it is at any level I wish.
Yep, that nicely sums up my own perspective, I learned long ago that it isn't possible to recreate the experience of a real performance at home. The audience I need to satisfy with my efforts numbers just two.
Last edited by Ray P on Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sorry, I couldn't resist!
steve s
Shed dweller
Posts: 2829
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: east yorks

#13 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by steve s »

Greg wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 12:08 am

So that was RD’s DIY. All kit is somebodies DIY.
I like that Greg..

We tend to decriminate between DIY and commercial, but a design starts the same way in most cases.

I suppose we readily accept that the same thing applies to recordings.
Last edited by steve s on Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
The tube manual is quite like a telephone book. The number of it perfect. It is useful to make it possible to speak with a girl. But we can't see her beautiful face from the telephone number
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15708
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#14 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by Nick »

steve s wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:05 am
Greg wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 12:08 am

So that was RD’s DIY. All kit is somebodies DIY.
I like that Greg..
I guess there are some things done by teams, but maybe not so much when it comes to HiFi.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
rowuk
Old Hand
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:50 pm
Location: Germany

#15 Re: On the subject of HiFi

Post by rowuk »

Being an orchestral musician, my opinion is perhaps different - but not necessarily more valid.

I personally believe that the goal of hifi is NOT accuracy, rather to create a "plausible" image of the event recorded.

Plausible in the case of a large orchestra is wide and deep with little or no "pinpoint imaging". Important is also the audibility of space and decay once instruments stop playing. I prefer recordings that give a sense of rows 10 - 16 in the hall where I do not need to look to the left and right to "see" the whole ensemble. This also leaves plenty of room for mono recordings to sound "plausible".

Plausible in the case of small (acoustic) groups is a more immediate sound where the space BETWEEN the musicians contributes to the realism. Closer microphone positioning picks up more "articulation" and instrument related noises.

Plausible for multitrack pop/rock recordings is the "in your face" presentation like when listening to the monitors in a studio. Any "geometry" in this world is completely artificial.

This is not to say that "accuracy" is not important. In this case the question is what did the microphone actually "hear". A spot microphone 1 foot away from a trumpet bell will sound like 1 foot away from a trumpet bell - a position that no one appreciates in real life (trumpet is my instrument). From this vantage point, the overtones will be far stronger than recording the same trumpet from 50 feet away. Both can be accurate in respect to the distance - if we know what that is.

We can bring a lot of parameters into the picture, but the ones most important to me can not currently be quantified:
Density of tone
Geometry of the ensemble (how wide is wide, how deep is deep)
Articulation (relative to the UseCase as labelled above)
Decay (how audible is the fadeout of room effects)

There is also the subject of intermodulation - as an acoustic phenomenon, not distortion. Closer microphones create a need for this to occur in the listening space
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.
Post Reply