OK, found it. Here is a very pointed and brief post on the futility of using live music as your goal that really nails it, IMO. Some of you are probably familiar with the author, Romy the Cat. In this case, I could not agree more with him. English is obviously not his first language, though he seems to do pretty well with it in spite of that. Check out the rest of his site for some entertaining, and often illuminating reading.
resolution and imaging
As my system has evolved over the years, I've noticed a change in how I perceive resolution. Resolution and imaging now seem inextricably linked to me, in other words, maximized imaging is absolutely necessary to maximizing resolution.
Prior to the last couple of years, I heard increases in resolution the way most reviewers describe it. A lowered noise floor allowed more detail through, I was hearing more background (low level) information than I heard previously.
With more recent upgrades, I now hear greater detail/resolution due to enhanced image density and dimensionality. Each upgrade brings more spaciousness, and with more space between all the micro elements that make up sound I hear more detail/resolution. I would not be able to hear as much detail/resolution without this enhanced imaging.
And so now I hear of audiophiles who claim imaging is not important and/or not on high on their list of priorities. I theorize that without high imaging capabilities one cannot achieve maximum resolution from their system.
I recently saw a thread on holographic imaging, some argue this is not present in live music. I totally disagree, live sound lives in physical space, physical space is defined by three dimensions (at least three we've been able to detect), sound is by definition, holographic.
IMO, audio systems must maximize image dimensionality in order to be both high resolution and more lifelike. While I agree that other aspects of audio reproduction are critically important, ie. tonality, dynamics, continuousness, etc., so is imaging.
Prior to the last couple of years, I heard increases in resolution the way most reviewers describe it. A lowered noise floor allowed more detail through, I was hearing more background (low level) information than I heard previously.
With more recent upgrades, I now hear greater detail/resolution due to enhanced image density and dimensionality. Each upgrade brings more spaciousness, and with more space between all the micro elements that make up sound I hear more detail/resolution. I would not be able to hear as much detail/resolution without this enhanced imaging.
And so now I hear of audiophiles who claim imaging is not important and/or not on high on their list of priorities. I theorize that without high imaging capabilities one cannot achieve maximum resolution from their system.
I recently saw a thread on holographic imaging, some argue this is not present in live music. I totally disagree, live sound lives in physical space, physical space is defined by three dimensions (at least three we've been able to detect), sound is by definition, holographic.
IMO, audio systems must maximize image dimensionality in order to be both high resolution and more lifelike. While I agree that other aspects of audio reproduction are critically important, ie. tonality, dynamics, continuousness, etc., so is imaging.
Showing 3 responses by jax2
Food for though - inflated dimensionality is not always better - it just means the system has phase issues. Amused to Death deliberately takes advantage of some very distinctive technology called Qsound to create spatial effects via processing. There are not that many projects recorded using this effect and it is more of a novelty in my opinion. Here's a quote from that wiki: It is important to distinguish 3D positional processing (example: QSound i.e. the multi-channel QSystem professional processor used in the production of pop music and film audio) from stereo expansion (examples: QSound QXpander, SRS(R)Sound Retrieval System). Positional 3D audio processing is a producer-side technology. It is applied to individual instruments or sound effects, and is therefore only usable at the mixing phase of music and soundtrack production, or under realtime control of game audio mixing software. Stereo expansion (processing of recorded channels and background ambience) is primarily a consumer-side process that can be arbitrarily applied to stereo content in the end-user environment using analog integrated circuits or digital signal processing (DSP) routines. That said, holographic presentation is very important to me in listening to my system, and is the primary reason I think I prefer SET amps. As far as live music, I think it depends entirely upon the space/venue and the way the music is amplified (if it is). In general, it certainly does exist in that we can hear spatial cues, but many performances I hear live do not occur to me as spatially compelling, for lack of a better descriptor. Furthermore, I think it's pretty absurd to compare, or rather to base one expectations of a home system upon what live music sounds like. They are two entirely different things and can be enjoyed on different levels and to different degrees. Fundamentally they both present music and connect with us emotionally on that level, but trying to reproduce "live" at home is the proverbial carrot on the stick - it's never going to happen and is a sure way to stay on the merry-go-round of continuing to strive for the impossible (when there is SOOO much to enjoy in what actually IS possible and holographic presentation is part of that). I do enjoy, Amused to Death, by the way, I just consider it's spatial presentation to be a novelty and I don't think I'd want to hear all my music presented that way. |
I ask, should live music really be the holy grail of audio experience? Based on my live concert experiences, I would more often choose to hear my audio system over live music. I point to poor sound reinforcement, less than favorable venue acoustics, even poor performance as reasons to favor the in home experience. While I can accept live music as the ultimate musical experience, it more often doesn't live up to it's promise. Absolutely have the same kinds of experience with much of the live music I hear (not all of it or I'd probably just stop going). As I intimated before, holding the experience of live music as the "holy grail", as you put it, is an exercise in frustration, and can easily get in the way of enjoying a perfectly wonderful system. I recently read an excellent summation this fruitless effort, albeit in rather coarse terms. Nevertheless, it summed up my feelings on the matter quite well. I'll see if I can find it in my 'history' and post a link. I completely agree that room treatments can make or break both a system or a concert venue. It does not necessarily have to spoil ones experience of the music though...I guess that's really up to the individual. I can think of concerts where the acoustics were not great and I had a great time and very much enjoyed the experience, and I can also think of times where poor acoustics absolutely ruined what might have been a really great concert. I don't think that depth and dimension is the be-all end-all goal of all audiophiles. As Dave_b illustrating with the 'meaningless drivel', which could, of course, be applied to most of anyone's material pursuits. I guess my response to that would be to ask why you were participating in the conversation if you felt that way? Other than that I agree with the rest of the sentiment - go with what moves your heart and soul. I don't know that any of us can actually completely remove our 'head' from the equation, but it is a noble pursuit (the world may be a better place if we could). Ultimately it is the best of what music does for me (as well as other pursuits of passion): it takes me out of my head. What a great feeling that is!! |