WAJ on Audio S-V
FROM HI-FI to HIGH-END:
What's Wrong?
Part 1 S-V
by: W.A.J.
We all know the term ‘Hi Fi’ is an abbreviation of ‘High-Fidelity’. Fidelity depicts faithfulness. Therefore, the term ‘High-Fidelity’ defines the aim of the hobby, which is to achieve the highest level of faithfulness (or accuracy) to the original (live) sound, as it was recorded.
If this is your own goal, then for a reality-check I’d suggest that you try to get an opportunity to listen to UNAMPLIFIED musical instruments and voices: Your friends’ voices will do, church-bands, military-bands, orchestras, marching-bands, street-side minstrels, whatever - even the un-amplified instruments of a popular band in rehearsal, for instance. Listen also to solo instruments; drums, guitars and especially the piano. Compare the sounds of these live instruments to those of similar instruments and voices as reproduced by your system. If your system is like most HiFi systems, then the sound won’t even be close to the real thing. It isn’t your fault, really.
I blame this unfortunate state of affairs on the manufacturers of inadequate equipment (especially speakers) which have made a mockery of the term; High-Fidelity. The reasons for this are many and varied, in my opinion, with greed, ineptitude, convenience, incompetence, and large measures of dis-ingenuousness being prominent among them. Members of the press who knowingly recommend mediocre equipment are no saints either.
The corruption of HiFi is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, audiophiles have since coined the term 'High-End Audio' to describe the hobby and to differentiate between the pursuit of the absolute sound, and the acceptance of mediocre fidelity.
However, in my view, high-end is also being corrupted, and has been for a very long time. It’s mostly corrupted by what one could call; 'The can’t see the forest for the trees’-Syndrome. The prevailing trend seems to be a focus on reproducing and analyzing all the minute details (the trees) of music. Details are certainly important, but relatively very little attention is given to the more major factors (let's say; factors regarding the 'topology' of the 'forest', as a whole). These major factors are vastly more important if REALISTIC sound reproduction is the goal, as it’s supposed to be in high-end audio. But this is exactly where most modern audio-systems fail dismally, even as they excel at reproducing minute detail.
Perhaps the HiFi industry needs to get its priorities right. Whether ‘low-level detail-resolution’ has a justifiable claim to its current position at the top of the order is the question at issue.
FROM HI-FI to HIGH-END:
What's Wrong?
Part 1 S-V
by: W.A.J.
We all know the term ‘Hi Fi’ is an abbreviation of ‘High-Fidelity’. Fidelity depicts faithfulness. Therefore, the term ‘High-Fidelity’ defines the aim of the hobby, which is to achieve the highest level of faithfulness (or accuracy) to the original (live) sound, as it was recorded.
If this is your own goal, then for a reality-check I’d suggest that you try to get an opportunity to listen to UNAMPLIFIED musical instruments and voices: Your friends’ voices will do, church-bands, military-bands, orchestras, marching-bands, street-side minstrels, whatever - even the un-amplified instruments of a popular band in rehearsal, for instance. Listen also to solo instruments; drums, guitars and especially the piano. Compare the sounds of these live instruments to those of similar instruments and voices as reproduced by your system. If your system is like most HiFi systems, then the sound won’t even be close to the real thing. It isn’t your fault, really.
I blame this unfortunate state of affairs on the manufacturers of inadequate equipment (especially speakers) which have made a mockery of the term; High-Fidelity. The reasons for this are many and varied, in my opinion, with greed, ineptitude, convenience, incompetence, and large measures of dis-ingenuousness being prominent among them. Members of the press who knowingly recommend mediocre equipment are no saints either.
The corruption of HiFi is one of the reasons why, in my opinion, audiophiles have since coined the term 'High-End Audio' to describe the hobby and to differentiate between the pursuit of the absolute sound, and the acceptance of mediocre fidelity.
However, in my view, high-end is also being corrupted, and has been for a very long time. It’s mostly corrupted by what one could call; 'The can’t see the forest for the trees’-Syndrome. The prevailing trend seems to be a focus on reproducing and analyzing all the minute details (the trees) of music. Details are certainly important, but relatively very little attention is given to the more major factors (let's say; factors regarding the 'topology' of the 'forest', as a whole). These major factors are vastly more important if REALISTIC sound reproduction is the goal, as it’s supposed to be in high-end audio. But this is exactly where most modern audio-systems fail dismally, even as they excel at reproducing minute detail.
Perhaps the HiFi industry needs to get its priorities right. Whether ‘low-level detail-resolution’ has a justifiable claim to its current position at the top of the order is the question at issue.
THE MOST CRITICAL FACTORS FOR REALISM:
(a) DYNAMIC CAPABILITY
A home system consisting of the Spendor BC1 speaker-system, Quad electronics and Thorens TD125mkII/SME 3009II/Shure V15III front-end would have been considered state-of-the-art, back in the day and, even today, would be respected as way above average. But even back then, though the sound was sweet, neutral and pure, it never ever sounded totally like real live music to me. It sounded too processed, too refined, too thin, and too compressed. Real instruments, to me, sound raw, natural, full-bodied, and dynamic, as do voices. That’s my problem with most ‘state-of-the-art’ systems today, they sound just like my old Spendor system - and that's unfortunate.
In my opinion, one of the main causes for the unrealistic reproduction of sound today, as it’s been for many years, is; inefficient speakers incapable of realistic, lifelike dynamic response (that is, assuming all other aspects of system performance are up to par). I believe DYNAMIC CAPABILITY to be locked in a two-way tie for THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR in realistic sound reproduction.
What is dynamic capability? It’s the ability of a system to reproduce the minor and major volume-swings so prevalent in in the everyday sounds of real-life, and in live music – it’s one of the main elements that makes music sound LIVE. Dynamic-capability, in my view, relates to how closely a system mimics the the dynamic-range of a live performance. It relates to how well the system portrays the differences between the softest sounds, of the performance, and the loudest. For instance; from the soft shimmer of a cymbal, below the level of other instruments, to the loud thwack of a drum, rising above the level of everything else – the jump factor – the element of surprise. These are some of the elements that generate the excitement of live music, and portray much of the emotion invested in a musical work. The absence of adequate dynamic capability is what causes many systems to reproduce music sounding like poor facsimiles of the original event.
TRANSIENT-RESPONSE: For the sakes of expediency and simplicity, I'll include transient-response in this section on dynamics. This is because I believe that both go together, for the most part.
A transient is generally defined as a high-amplitude, short-duration sound at the beginning of a noise, such as; a hand-clap, thunder, a spoken word, or a musical note. (But this seems to exclude low-level transients - on the face of it). However, while the official definition stresses 'high-amplitude', I'd modify that to say; a transient is a relatively sharp, relatively intense (loud or soft) short-duration sound at the beginning of said note - the transient (loud or soft) manifests the initiation of the note. Yet, from either definition, it should be very obvious as to why I'm inclined to tie transients and dynamics together - they often go; hand-in-hand. For example, that soft (micro-dynamic) shimmer of a cymbal mentioned above would, likely, have been induced by a lightly played drum-stick generating a low-level transient, and subsequent shimmers. A good audio-system should be capable of resolving the low-level transient, generated at the beginning of the note, the instant that lightly-held stick caressed the cymbal. (The shimmer would have been manifestation of the resulting resonance, of the cymbal, caused by the initial 'light' impact). Exactly the same applies to the instant, at the beginning of the note, regarding the loud (macro-dynamic) thwack of the drum, also mentioned above.
I believe in the necessity of both excellent transient & dynamic response, in any good audio-system - both of which are of extreme importance - and both are inseparable, in my view. Therefore, any subsequent reference to dynamic-response, here, implicitly includes transient-response, if only for the sake of simplicity.
(b) LOWER MIDRANGE BODY (Correct Tonality)
And tied to dynamic-capability, as the most important factor, is LOWER MID-RANGE BODY, or weight. It facilitates the substance and tangibility to the sound of voices and instruments, which they exhibit in real-life. The lack of it in many systems is one of the reasons (studio-engineers’ antics aside) why our favorite singer sounds so different at a live concert than through many systems, where they sound, refined, thin, and glamorized. Live; they sound more full-bodied, raw, more natural, less refined, less glamorous. Sound’s familiar? Lower mid-range weight in a system facilitates the reproduction of a plucked string’s resonance in the body of a guitar, for instance, and makes the instrument sound BIG, or LIFE-SIZED, as it should.
The same (or similar) goes for almost every other instrument as aspects of their sound is conveyed through the all-important mid-range. But too many speakers (and other components) subtract the warmth and body out of the mid-range; so you’ll hear the sweet sound of the string’s upper registers, but the body of the guitar (or other instrument) is AWOL. The sound is therefore thin and unrealistic. In my view, the mid-range is absolutely CRUCIAL. It’s the house where music lives (bass is the foundation, and treble – the trimmings). Therefore, if the mid-range isn’t right, then the system is already disqualified for critical listening. Such a system cannot accurately replicate the sounds (including all the tones and overtones) of most musical instruments.
One can appreciate music reproduced with little or no bass or treble. In fact many live performances display very little, or none, of either – solo piano played in the middle registers, guitar, organ, small jazz or classical ensembles, a cappella singers etc. Even music that has a lot of both can be understood and appreciated without bass and treble. But imagine that same music, any music, played without the mid-range. See the point?
Ninety-percent of the sounds in nature and music, in my estimation, are in the mid-range. Therefore stellar reproduction of ALL the mid-range, including the LOWER MID-RANGE, is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL for the accurate reproduction of the sounds of music. So never mind the awesome bass, and sweet treble, the music has no home in a system flawed by a relatively thin mid-section.
Correct tonality of musical notes, and the realistic dynamism of those notes are locked in a two-way tie as THE most important factors in the quest for realistic reproduction, in my opinion, as these are the elements that inform us on the macro level (even from a great distance) that the music we’re hearing is either LIVE, or a very LIFELIKE reproduction. Low-level detail resolution MUST, then, be secondary to the twin giants of tonality and dynamism, partly because it operates on the micro level (evident mainly in the near-field) and partly because it is largely dependent on the accuracy of the first two for its own authenticity.
The detailed resolution of what’s left of a musical note is relatively meaningless if that note is already compromised in its tonality and/or in its dynamism. Low-level detail resolution is important, but it must be regarded in its proper context, contrary to the currently popular trend
(c) LOW-LEVEL DETAIL RESOLUTION.
Within its proper context, the other important factor is, certainly, the ability of a system to render LOW-LEVEL DETAILS. These are the tiny details that give us the clues as to what is happening in the music, and how, and completes the picture.
For instance; the resolution of the sound of individual bristles of a brush on cymbal, a singer’s intake of breath, the sound of a pick on a guitar’s string, as distinct from that of a finger, the initial sound of a stick or mallet on drum-skin. Low-level details also encompass the sound of the decay of musical notes, the ability to follow the linger of a piano note as it slowly fades into oblivion, even while the horn-section tries to blow the roof off, and the drummer imitates the cacophony of a machine-gun on full-automatic.
For critical listening, the ability of a system to render low-level details is priceless. It engenders those moments of blissful discovery of performance-related details – like that haunting electric-guitar melody deep in the mix – which we’d never heard on lesser systems. One is left with a feeling of experiencing every detail of a performance.
This factor is also extremely important if realism is to be achieved. The problem is that; in today's speakers, the two more important factors of dynamism and correct-tonality are literally ignored, for several reasons (explained in part 4) in the process of affording 'detail-resolution' a false position of prominence. Indeed, a falsely thin midrange is even now preferred, by lovers of analytical detail, as it serves to focus their attention on the details of what's left of a midrange bereft of the 'distraction' of realistic lower-mids. The resulting sound is certainly crisp, 'detailed', and clear, because of this tactic, but also woefully unrealistic, for the same reason.
PRIORITIES
Since it is virtually impossible to be equally excellent in all areas, in all instances, it is also of paramount importance for us to get our PRIORITIES right. The macro-elements of music must be, and are, far more important than those that are 'micro'. Put another way; the overall 'big picture' (along with its major elements) is much more important than its minute (microscopic, or 'micro-sonic') details. How can the minor details be as important as the major elements of the picture, or of the object, itself? Simple logic dictates the order; (1) Dynamic Capability & Correct Tonality (including the oft neglected, but critically important Lower-Midrange Tonality/Accuracy) and (2) Low-Level Detail-Resolution.
OTHER FACTORS
OK, so I’ve only highlighted a few factors necessary for realistic music reproduction, in my opinion. That does not mean that other factors aren’t also important: Of course, we want excellent stereo separation, near holographic imaging, reasonably flat frequency-response, great signal to noise ratio, etc, etc. But most 'good' Hi-End audio-systems already have all that. I’m only pointing out the areas where many systems are lacking.
(a) DYNAMIC CAPABILITY
A home system consisting of the Spendor BC1 speaker-system, Quad electronics and Thorens TD125mkII/SME 3009II/Shure V15III front-end would have been considered state-of-the-art, back in the day and, even today, would be respected as way above average. But even back then, though the sound was sweet, neutral and pure, it never ever sounded totally like real live music to me. It sounded too processed, too refined, too thin, and too compressed. Real instruments, to me, sound raw, natural, full-bodied, and dynamic, as do voices. That’s my problem with most ‘state-of-the-art’ systems today, they sound just like my old Spendor system - and that's unfortunate.
In my opinion, one of the main causes for the unrealistic reproduction of sound today, as it’s been for many years, is; inefficient speakers incapable of realistic, lifelike dynamic response (that is, assuming all other aspects of system performance are up to par). I believe DYNAMIC CAPABILITY to be locked in a two-way tie for THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR in realistic sound reproduction.
What is dynamic capability? It’s the ability of a system to reproduce the minor and major volume-swings so prevalent in in the everyday sounds of real-life, and in live music – it’s one of the main elements that makes music sound LIVE. Dynamic-capability, in my view, relates to how closely a system mimics the the dynamic-range of a live performance. It relates to how well the system portrays the differences between the softest sounds, of the performance, and the loudest. For instance; from the soft shimmer of a cymbal, below the level of other instruments, to the loud thwack of a drum, rising above the level of everything else – the jump factor – the element of surprise. These are some of the elements that generate the excitement of live music, and portray much of the emotion invested in a musical work. The absence of adequate dynamic capability is what causes many systems to reproduce music sounding like poor facsimiles of the original event.
TRANSIENT-RESPONSE: For the sakes of expediency and simplicity, I'll include transient-response in this section on dynamics. This is because I believe that both go together, for the most part.
A transient is generally defined as a high-amplitude, short-duration sound at the beginning of a noise, such as; a hand-clap, thunder, a spoken word, or a musical note. (But this seems to exclude low-level transients - on the face of it). However, while the official definition stresses 'high-amplitude', I'd modify that to say; a transient is a relatively sharp, relatively intense (loud or soft) short-duration sound at the beginning of said note - the transient (loud or soft) manifests the initiation of the note. Yet, from either definition, it should be very obvious as to why I'm inclined to tie transients and dynamics together - they often go; hand-in-hand. For example, that soft (micro-dynamic) shimmer of a cymbal mentioned above would, likely, have been induced by a lightly played drum-stick generating a low-level transient, and subsequent shimmers. A good audio-system should be capable of resolving the low-level transient, generated at the beginning of the note, the instant that lightly-held stick caressed the cymbal. (The shimmer would have been manifestation of the resulting resonance, of the cymbal, caused by the initial 'light' impact). Exactly the same applies to the instant, at the beginning of the note, regarding the loud (macro-dynamic) thwack of the drum, also mentioned above.
I believe in the necessity of both excellent transient & dynamic response, in any good audio-system - both of which are of extreme importance - and both are inseparable, in my view. Therefore, any subsequent reference to dynamic-response, here, implicitly includes transient-response, if only for the sake of simplicity.
(b) LOWER MIDRANGE BODY (Correct Tonality)
And tied to dynamic-capability, as the most important factor, is LOWER MID-RANGE BODY, or weight. It facilitates the substance and tangibility to the sound of voices and instruments, which they exhibit in real-life. The lack of it in many systems is one of the reasons (studio-engineers’ antics aside) why our favorite singer sounds so different at a live concert than through many systems, where they sound, refined, thin, and glamorized. Live; they sound more full-bodied, raw, more natural, less refined, less glamorous. Sound’s familiar? Lower mid-range weight in a system facilitates the reproduction of a plucked string’s resonance in the body of a guitar, for instance, and makes the instrument sound BIG, or LIFE-SIZED, as it should.
The same (or similar) goes for almost every other instrument as aspects of their sound is conveyed through the all-important mid-range. But too many speakers (and other components) subtract the warmth and body out of the mid-range; so you’ll hear the sweet sound of the string’s upper registers, but the body of the guitar (or other instrument) is AWOL. The sound is therefore thin and unrealistic. In my view, the mid-range is absolutely CRUCIAL. It’s the house where music lives (bass is the foundation, and treble – the trimmings). Therefore, if the mid-range isn’t right, then the system is already disqualified for critical listening. Such a system cannot accurately replicate the sounds (including all the tones and overtones) of most musical instruments.
One can appreciate music reproduced with little or no bass or treble. In fact many live performances display very little, or none, of either – solo piano played in the middle registers, guitar, organ, small jazz or classical ensembles, a cappella singers etc. Even music that has a lot of both can be understood and appreciated without bass and treble. But imagine that same music, any music, played without the mid-range. See the point?
Ninety-percent of the sounds in nature and music, in my estimation, are in the mid-range. Therefore stellar reproduction of ALL the mid-range, including the LOWER MID-RANGE, is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL for the accurate reproduction of the sounds of music. So never mind the awesome bass, and sweet treble, the music has no home in a system flawed by a relatively thin mid-section.
Correct tonality of musical notes, and the realistic dynamism of those notes are locked in a two-way tie as THE most important factors in the quest for realistic reproduction, in my opinion, as these are the elements that inform us on the macro level (even from a great distance) that the music we’re hearing is either LIVE, or a very LIFELIKE reproduction. Low-level detail resolution MUST, then, be secondary to the twin giants of tonality and dynamism, partly because it operates on the micro level (evident mainly in the near-field) and partly because it is largely dependent on the accuracy of the first two for its own authenticity.
The detailed resolution of what’s left of a musical note is relatively meaningless if that note is already compromised in its tonality and/or in its dynamism. Low-level detail resolution is important, but it must be regarded in its proper context, contrary to the currently popular trend
(c) LOW-LEVEL DETAIL RESOLUTION.
Within its proper context, the other important factor is, certainly, the ability of a system to render LOW-LEVEL DETAILS. These are the tiny details that give us the clues as to what is happening in the music, and how, and completes the picture.
For instance; the resolution of the sound of individual bristles of a brush on cymbal, a singer’s intake of breath, the sound of a pick on a guitar’s string, as distinct from that of a finger, the initial sound of a stick or mallet on drum-skin. Low-level details also encompass the sound of the decay of musical notes, the ability to follow the linger of a piano note as it slowly fades into oblivion, even while the horn-section tries to blow the roof off, and the drummer imitates the cacophony of a machine-gun on full-automatic.
For critical listening, the ability of a system to render low-level details is priceless. It engenders those moments of blissful discovery of performance-related details – like that haunting electric-guitar melody deep in the mix – which we’d never heard on lesser systems. One is left with a feeling of experiencing every detail of a performance.
This factor is also extremely important if realism is to be achieved. The problem is that; in today's speakers, the two more important factors of dynamism and correct-tonality are literally ignored, for several reasons (explained in part 4) in the process of affording 'detail-resolution' a false position of prominence. Indeed, a falsely thin midrange is even now preferred, by lovers of analytical detail, as it serves to focus their attention on the details of what's left of a midrange bereft of the 'distraction' of realistic lower-mids. The resulting sound is certainly crisp, 'detailed', and clear, because of this tactic, but also woefully unrealistic, for the same reason.
PRIORITIES
Since it is virtually impossible to be equally excellent in all areas, in all instances, it is also of paramount importance for us to get our PRIORITIES right. The macro-elements of music must be, and are, far more important than those that are 'micro'. Put another way; the overall 'big picture' (along with its major elements) is much more important than its minute (microscopic, or 'micro-sonic') details. How can the minor details be as important as the major elements of the picture, or of the object, itself? Simple logic dictates the order; (1) Dynamic Capability & Correct Tonality (including the oft neglected, but critically important Lower-Midrange Tonality/Accuracy) and (2) Low-Level Detail-Resolution.
OTHER FACTORS
OK, so I’ve only highlighted a few factors necessary for realistic music reproduction, in my opinion. That does not mean that other factors aren’t also important: Of course, we want excellent stereo separation, near holographic imaging, reasonably flat frequency-response, great signal to noise ratio, etc, etc. But most 'good' Hi-End audio-systems already have all that. I’m only pointing out the areas where many systems are lacking.
CONCLUSION
Perhaps I should close with an excerpt from an article on my own audio-philosophies. This segment relates just one aspect of my experiences which have contributed to my dissatisfaction with my 'top-notch' Spendor-system, previously mentioned, along with the vast majority of conventional high-end systems, as a consequence. [The Spendor BC1 was, and still is, among the very best exponents of the type of sound which dominates high-end today - sweet, bright and detailed, but thin in the lower-midrange, and dynamically limited, COMPARED TO LIVE MUSIC]:
For many years, I’ve lived next-door to an army-camp’s grassy airfield. Every few months or so, the army holds nocturnal functions on this airfield on which their 30-piece (un-amplified) military-band/orchestra is set up at various points close to, or further away from, my house. And whenever I listen to this band, even from great distances, it’s always possible to unmistakably recognize the sound as that of a live band – a humbling experience which always made going back to my highly-rated system (at the time) a disappointing prospect. [The turntable is now the only remnant of that system].
By far, the most significant elements of this live sound were/are (a) its dynamism (the ebb and flow of notes floating – sometimes those transients jumping – across the distance), and (b) its middle-range ‘full-bodiedness'.
With this band, as with virtually all live un-amplified musical performances, the middle range (from low-mid to high-mid) is by far the most dominant. And most noticeable is its raw, 'warm', fullness of tone, in conjunction with dynamics, causing the 'BIG-SOUND' characteristic of real instruments. Bass and treble are mere extensions of (or relatively minor accessories to) the predominant 'full-bodied'-mids.
And the truth is; minor details are also not very apparent from great distances (or even from most normal positions in the audience - 'mid-hall' or mid-'field', for example) yet the sound of that military-orchestra was/is always undoubtedly recognizable as LIVE, and very enjoyable as such.
Having also listened to this band (and others) up close, I can also appreciate the minute details, including; the rustle of music-sheets, the scuffing of feet on the wooden platform, etc. - in addition to details similar to those previously articulated. But while these minor details do enhance the experience, the main elements of the live experience always remain; the DYNAMISM and the MID-RANGE ‘FULL-BODIEDNESS’ – even more so, up close.
These are, exactly, the two main elements my Spendor and most modern speakers lack. And this is why, despite excellent detail-resolution and other attributes, they're inept at the main goal of 'high-fidelity' - the faithful, LIFELIKE reproduction of LIVE music, as it was recorded.
So now, in assessing my system, any system, I first try to listen from a distance (from another room, or even from outside). I ask myself how close it sounds to a live singer or band in there. I listen for the macro-elements of live music, in the context of the fore-going - dynamism and correct ('full-bodied') tonality. And then I go inside to continue my assessment of these elements, and also to listen for the minute details, and to other secondary aspects, such as stereo-effects, etc.
I'm lucky, and grateful, to have a constant source of live music as my personal reference. Luckier still that I can listen to this source even while I tune my own system, in real-time. This has contributed immensely to the development of my current DIY speaker-system, and to the formation of my own radical views on speakers, in general.
Thankfully, my own system is now somewhat closer to the ideal I seek - much closer, in my opinion, than the typical high-end system. Hopefully, these articles will help a few in their quest for their own ideal audio-systems.
For a follow-up to the points raised, please refer to Part 2.
Perhaps I should close with an excerpt from an article on my own audio-philosophies. This segment relates just one aspect of my experiences which have contributed to my dissatisfaction with my 'top-notch' Spendor-system, previously mentioned, along with the vast majority of conventional high-end systems, as a consequence. [The Spendor BC1 was, and still is, among the very best exponents of the type of sound which dominates high-end today - sweet, bright and detailed, but thin in the lower-midrange, and dynamically limited, COMPARED TO LIVE MUSIC]:
For many years, I’ve lived next-door to an army-camp’s grassy airfield. Every few months or so, the army holds nocturnal functions on this airfield on which their 30-piece (un-amplified) military-band/orchestra is set up at various points close to, or further away from, my house. And whenever I listen to this band, even from great distances, it’s always possible to unmistakably recognize the sound as that of a live band – a humbling experience which always made going back to my highly-rated system (at the time) a disappointing prospect. [The turntable is now the only remnant of that system].
By far, the most significant elements of this live sound were/are (a) its dynamism (the ebb and flow of notes floating – sometimes those transients jumping – across the distance), and (b) its middle-range ‘full-bodiedness'.
With this band, as with virtually all live un-amplified musical performances, the middle range (from low-mid to high-mid) is by far the most dominant. And most noticeable is its raw, 'warm', fullness of tone, in conjunction with dynamics, causing the 'BIG-SOUND' characteristic of real instruments. Bass and treble are mere extensions of (or relatively minor accessories to) the predominant 'full-bodied'-mids.
And the truth is; minor details are also not very apparent from great distances (or even from most normal positions in the audience - 'mid-hall' or mid-'field', for example) yet the sound of that military-orchestra was/is always undoubtedly recognizable as LIVE, and very enjoyable as such.
Having also listened to this band (and others) up close, I can also appreciate the minute details, including; the rustle of music-sheets, the scuffing of feet on the wooden platform, etc. - in addition to details similar to those previously articulated. But while these minor details do enhance the experience, the main elements of the live experience always remain; the DYNAMISM and the MID-RANGE ‘FULL-BODIEDNESS’ – even more so, up close.
These are, exactly, the two main elements my Spendor and most modern speakers lack. And this is why, despite excellent detail-resolution and other attributes, they're inept at the main goal of 'high-fidelity' - the faithful, LIFELIKE reproduction of LIVE music, as it was recorded.
So now, in assessing my system, any system, I first try to listen from a distance (from another room, or even from outside). I ask myself how close it sounds to a live singer or band in there. I listen for the macro-elements of live music, in the context of the fore-going - dynamism and correct ('full-bodied') tonality. And then I go inside to continue my assessment of these elements, and also to listen for the minute details, and to other secondary aspects, such as stereo-effects, etc.
I'm lucky, and grateful, to have a constant source of live music as my personal reference. Luckier still that I can listen to this source even while I tune my own system, in real-time. This has contributed immensely to the development of my current DIY speaker-system, and to the formation of my own radical views on speakers, in general.
Thankfully, my own system is now somewhat closer to the ideal I seek - much closer, in my opinion, than the typical high-end system. Hopefully, these articles will help a few in their quest for their own ideal audio-systems.
For a follow-up to the points raised, please refer to Part 2.
Copyright 2010