Describe the "new HiFi sound"?


Recently had a discussion with an audio friend over the word "musical" and what this word means to each of us with regard to sound from different amplifiers and speakers. Some debate too.  And, reading this other comment on Agon once in a while...how some equipment has the "new HiFi sound".  

ASK: 

Can someone describe this, in your words, what is the new HiFi Sound to you?  Examples? Or, opposites of the new HiFi sound, what does this sound like?

 

 

 

decooney

I agree that today’s sound is different and I believe it is because everything it’s went through analog mixing boards and now they’re digital.  Everything was recorded on tape and now is digital. Electronics have been “Improved”. Speakers have been “improved”.  Turntables, arms, cartridges, wires, phono preamps etc, have been “improved”. And the list goes on.

Save for the fact there is little pure analogue being sold today (i.e. very few LPs are recorded AAA any more) there is no generic 'new hi-fi sound.

There has always been a wide range of 'sounds' and will continue to be.

And if it is suggested a 'new' sound is better than what came before, modern equipment does not always sound better than old.

I have older recordings that used tube microphones and were completely analog…they are full of life and color dynamic range.  How things are executed is more important than the Tech DuJour!

There are really two different discussions happening here. I'm still thinking about "musical" and not "new hifi sound."

That said...

Case in point: my new speakers are much more revealing, have more air, ambience and room/studio presence in the recording but there's no etch, shrillness, or harshness to speak of. The mids are enhanced with brass, winds, strings, chimes and percussion that don't ever shade the sound but seem to burnish it, imbuing them with body that project out into the room. And the bass is propulsive, tight and expansive with all the sound emanating out from the speakers to the point where they can face with minor toe it, allowing a very wide sweet spot. 

This is the kind of description which delivers information rather than repeating the word "musical." It is doing *work.*

Would you rather listen to Elton play in an airport boarding area, or the newbie play Elton material, in Carnegie Hall, sitting in the best seat, of your selection. Which would you consider to be the more musical ?

This is another use of musical, but it's still begging the question. In this case, it's standing in for a description of the qualities which make Elton's playing aesthetically, semantically better — and that requires further unpacking. And notice — this example has nothing to do, any longer, with acoustics. So, the word "musical" has already facilitated drift of topic because of its (question-begging) vagueness.

Musical is a useless term. It means I like it.

I would agree that this is one way people use the term "musical." It's dodging the question of trying to find the words to say what is specifically happening.  I would argue there are more useful functions intended by folks who use the word "musical" — though they're only intentions and not more than that.

perhaps I tend to prefer a "natural" and "neutral" presentation from a system - one that does not sound forced or call any particular attention to itself. 

Isn't one man's "neutral" another's "forced"? I guess the question I'd pose is this: Is there actually anyone who goes into an audio showroom and says, "Give me something that is really "forced" and "unnatural"? Doesn't everyone say they want something "natural," or "musical"?