What is a high end stereo SUPPOSED to sound like?

I agree with you Cdc. It should sound like nothing. At the risk of using an inflammatory word, the system should be neutral.

IME, the most common obstacle to reaching that elusive goal is the listening room. No matter how good the equipment, if the room sounds like something, the system will never sound like nothing.

Bryon

07-05-12: Mapman
"Nothing" would infer no effects from room acoustics. Is that what a high end stereo system is supposed to sound like? I am not sure about that. How would spatial queues captured in the recording be delivered to the ears accurately? Can a sound even be truly "high end" without delivering these accurately to some extent?

Hi Mapman - When I said that the room should sound like "nothing," I didn't mean it literally, just as Cdc didn't mean it literally when he said he thought a high end system should sound like "nothing." The closest thing to a room that sounds like nothing is an anechoic chamber, and it goes without saying that no one would want to listen in a room like that.

What I was trying to suggest by saying the room should sound like nothing is essentially the same thing I meant when I said that the equipment should sound like nothing, i.e. that it should be neutral. I know that's a controversial word in these parts, but that's more or less what I believe, with some qualifications.

To head off another potential misunderstanding, a neutral playback room, IMO, most certainly has ambient cues of its own. The listening room's ambient cues hopefully provide simulacra of the ambient cues of the recording space, though that is often difficult to achieve. But the general point you make about the importance of "spatial cues" is something I am in complete agreement with, as I argued at great length in another thread, where I said...

THE IMPORTANCE OF AMBIENT CUES IN THE LISTENING ROOM:

Every listening room contains an abundance of ambient cues. The specific characteristics of those ambient cues are relevant to the audiophile, for the following reason:

During playback, the ambient cues of the recording space are COMBINED with the ambient cues of the listening space.

The combination of the ambient cues of the recording space with the ambient cues of the listening space creates, in effect, a NEW SET OF AMBIENT CUES. I will call this new set of ambient cues the “playback space.” In other words:

Recording space + Listening space = Playback space

The playback space is what the audiophile actually hears at the listening position. It is the combination of the ambient cues of the recording space and the ambient cues of the listening space.

So I think we are in agreement.

Bryon

07-05-12: Cdc
IMHO, the Holy Grail would be 100% CORRECT room interaction. So would an anechoic chamber which has NO room effects be the best room interaction?

IMO, the answer is no. The total lack of ambient cues in an anechoic chamber results in purely BIDIRECTIONAL sound. That is very unnatural, since in the real world, sound is always to some extent OMNIDIRECTIONAL, due to the simple fact that the real world always has surfaces that reflect, diffuse, and diffract sound.

Likewise, a purely bidirectional presentation of music in the playback space would be very unnatural, since in the recording space, the music was to some extent omnidirectional. Even when the omnidirectional ambient cues of the recording space are contained IN THE RECORDING ITSELF, a purely bidirectional presentation in the playback space will still not sound like the recording space.

IMO, the playback space must create an OMNIDIRECTIONAL PRESENTATION, because that’s what the recording space always sounds like (unless, of course, the recording space is an anechoic chamber!). I don't mean that sound arrives at the listening position EQUALLY from all directions. I just mean that the playback space must have an omnidirectional reverberant field that emulates the omnidirectional reverberant field of the recording space.

IMO, the only time a purely bidirectional presentation will sound like the recording space is in binaural recordings, which are specifically designed TO EMULATE THE OMNIDIRECTIONAL PRESENTATION of the recording space. And that brings me to Foster_9’s comment that…

07-05-12: Foster_9
For me, a high end stereo is supposed to sound like music is being played in the room by real musicians, not by a stereo.

While I agree with the spirit of this comment, which is to contrast real music with a stereo, I will quibble with the phrase “music is being played in the room.” I don’t mean to be argumentative, but there is a genuine point to be made, which is this: A high end system should sound like music is being played in your listening room only if the recording contains FEW ambient cues of the recording space. In that case, you have the experience that “They are here.”

But if the recording contains ROBUST ambient cues of the recording space, then a high end system should sound like “You are there.” In other words, the system should create the illusion that you have been transported to the musicians, instead of the illusion that they have been transported to you. IME, the former illusion is much more difficult to achieve than the latter, largely due to the fact that the illusion that "You are there" requires a neutral listening room, and most listening rooms are far from neutral. FWIW, I elaborated on these ideas at great length in another thread.

All this results in an alternative answer to the OP's question...

A high end system should sound either like "they are here" or like "you are there."

Again, IMO, IME, etc.

Bryon

07-07-12: Learsfool
Hi guys - I wanted to chime in on the conversation about recording spaces for a moment that Bryon and Mapman are having. I don't think that anyone has made the point here that one would almost never want their music to sound like the actual recording space, if we are assuming that this space is a recording studio. These are very dead environments that do not enhance the music whatsoever, meaning how the music actually sounds in that space as it is actually being played.

Hi Learsfool - When I said...

...the playback space must create an OMNIDIRECTIONAL PRESENTATION, because that’s what the recording space always sounds like...

...I was referring to "recording spaces" outside a studio environment, e.g., halls. I understand that fewer and fewer recordings are actually done outside the studio these days.

I am also aware of the process by which studio recordings are created. I can't remember if I've mentioned this to you, but I studied with professional recording engineers for a brief but intense period (about 3 months), during which I learned how to capture recordings on a Nagra with a variety of microphones, edit those recordings in ProTools, and mix them on a Euphonix 5-B. It was a steep learning curve, but a very rewarding experience.

During that time I spent a lot of time in recording and re-recording studios, so I'm familiar with their typical acoustics, which as you say, are dead. My observations about the importance of creating a playback space whose ambient cues emulate the ambient cues of the recording space were NOT intended to apply to studio recording spaces.

Having said that, IMO there is a corollary consideration for studio recordings, namely that, in an ideal world, the ambient cues of the playback space would emulate the ambient cues of the "virtual space" created by the re-recording engineers. In the real world, that is of course difficult to achieve, partly because of the wide variety of virtual spaces made possible by modern mixing techniques and partly because we weren't present at the mix to know how things sounded. That is another reason why, IMO, it is valuable for a playback space to be neutral.

Bryon

I agree, an interesting article. I enjoyed the criteria for diagnosing audio nervosa, but I was even more interested in their proposed "Comparison by Contrast" method of evaluating audio equipment...

...play a larger number of recordings of vastly different styles and recording technique on two different systems to hear which system reveals more differences between the recordings.

According to Norwitz and Qvortrup, whichever system reveals larger differences among recordings is the more accurate system. And the more accurate the system, the more it conveys a recording's uniqueness...

Only if your audio system is designed to be as accurate as possible -- that is, only if it is dedicated to high contrast reproduction -- can it hope to recover the uniqueness of any recorded musical performance.

I wish I had known about that article when I wrote my very first post on Audiogon, in which I said...

How do you judge your system's neutrality?

Here’s an answer I’ve been kicking around: Your system is becoming more neutral whenever you change a system element and you get the following results:

(1) Individual pieces of music sound more unique.
(2) Your music collection sounds more diverse.

That comment ignited a firestorm of argument reaching 396 posts. It was a bit of a shock for a total newbie.

N & Q use the word 'accuracy,' whereas I used the word 'neutrality,' but our meanings are essentially identical, as is our proposed method for evaluating systems. It's an interesting case of Multiple Discovery.

Bryon

Hi Learsfool - I value your opinion, and I always look forward to reading your posts. We've discussed the concept of 'neutrality' many times on many threads, and we can never seem to agree on what it means or whether it's a real characteristic or a figment of audiophiles' imaginations.

I understand 'neutrality' to mean 'the degree of absence of colorations.' And I understand 'colorations' to mean 'audible inaccuracies.' So my view on neutrality is simply that...

1. Systems can be judged on the basis of the degree of audible inaccuracies.

2. The reduction of audible inaccuracies often (but not always) results in greater listener enjoyment.

Statement (2) is of course subjective. Some people enjoy audible inaccuracies. And people are entitled to enjoy whatever they like.

Statement (1) is what you and I have debated over and over. I'm not trying to argue the topic of neutrality all over again. I just want to make an observation that I believe is relevant to the topic of this thread, i.e. "What is a high end stereo supposed to sound like?" In your post on 7/12, you said...

NoNoise summed up what we all wish was the case nicely: "live music is the reference for all things audio. Hopefully, during the recording process that live reference is adhered to."

Unfortunately, this is almost never the case, and most audiophiles have no idea just how much this reference is totally ignored by most recording engineers, even when they are recording a live performance in an excellent hall.

I agree with these comments. The observation I'd like to make is that these comments assume that recordings can be judged on the basis of their accuracy. That is, the accuracy of the recording relative to the live event. That is one of two kinds of “accuracy” that appear in these discussions…

3. Accuracy of the RECORDING relative to the LIVE EVENT.

4. Accuracy of the SYSTEM relative to the RECORDING.

Admittedly, these two kinds of accuracy are different, but they have something important in common: They both require the listener to compare what he hears to SOMETHING UNKNOWN. For the first kind of accuracy, the Unknown is the live event. For the second kind of accuracy, the Unknown is the recording.

When you listen to a recording of a performance you never attended, or even a studio recording, you often say to yourself, "This recording doesn’t sound right. This isn't what the performance sounded like." You are confident of that even though you weren't there at the live event. That is exactly the same leap of logic that must be made when you listen to a system and say, "This system doesn’t sound right. This isn't what the recording sounds like."

In spite of the fact that the live event and the recording are, to some extent, Unknowns, many audiophiles believe they can reasonably speculate about them. Those speculations are, of course, uncertain. But their uncertainty doesn't mean that they are altogether unreliable. Speculations about accuracy become more reliable through experience, either experience with live music or experience with playback systems.

When audiophiles form judgments about the accuracy of a recording or the accuracy of a system, they are invariably judgments about the degree of audible inaccuracies. And judgments about the degree of audible inaccuracies are, by definition, judgments about neutrality.

Bryon

Bryon and Almarg, are you suggesting lack of neutrality includes any and all perceivable kinds of distortion? If you are, then can we not use "the alternate", aka, accuracy?

The word 'neutrality' means different things to different people. I use the word to mean 'the degree of absence of colorations.' And I use the word 'colorations' to mean 'audible inaccuracies.'

My use of the term 'neutrality' is limited to the degree of absence of AUDIBLE inaccuracies. But of course some inaccuracies are inaudible, either because they are outside the scope of human perception or beneath the threshold of individual perception. So the word 'accuracy' can't be substituted for 'neutrality' without a significant shift in meaning.

IMO, another useful way of thinking about the difference between the concept of 'accuracy' vs. the concept of 'neutrality' is this... Accuracy is objective, i.e. 'inaccuracy' refers to various kinds of distortions, many of which can be measured, and all of which exist whether we hear them or not. Neutrality is partly subjective, i.e. 'colorations' refers to various kinds of sonic "signatures," many of which can be heard by some listeners but not others, either because of differences in listener hearing or differences in listener expertise.

IMO, the concept of 'accuracy,' as it's commonly used by audiophiles, is a higher-level concept that subsumes the concepts of 'resolution' and 'neutrality.' In other words, resolution and neutrality are both TYPES OF ACCURACY. Resolution can be thought of as the accuracy of the reproduced SIGNAL, whereas neutrality can be thought of as the accuracy of the reproduced DISTORTION. Some high end systems are highly resolving but not very neutral. Others are highly neutral but somewhat less resolving. Which is preferable is of course largely subjective.

Bryon

Here's another thing I've noticed that bears on the OP's question... When things take a leap forward in SQ in my system or one that I'm very familiar with, one of the things I often hear is a subjective "slowing" of the music.

I don't mean the kind of slowing that's associated with slow bass or bad PRaT. The "slowing" I'm talking about is a pleasing effect, though admittedly it's a difficult one to describe.

It's almost as if the recording has been LITERALLY slowed down, except of course there's no pitch shift. It's like the music is somehow more "organized," which I experience as slower.

Dunno. Maybe that's an idiosyncratic experience.

Bryon

Ok, so I'm not crazy. Or at least my ears aren't crazy.

Interesting comments. I particularly like Nonoise and Whart's observation that realistic decays are at least as important as realistic attacks. In fact, I would add that to the list of answers to the OP's question...

One of the hallmarks of a high end system is that it can present decays convincingly.

Bryon

Thank you, Nonoise. I will print out your post and present it to my psychiatrist. Then she will finally have to rescind the restraining order.

bc