Article: Realism vs Accuracy For Audiophiles | Part 1: Soundstage

[Crom]

Thanks @bluesman for an illuminating and fascinating article. I can't wait to continue reading the series. In a past life I spent three months working as a tape op in a recording studio. I quit before getting the opportunity to do any real sound engineering ... I got bored making cups of coffee and finding drugs for rock 'stars' ... but this took me back - I should have pushed through. Good times. Thank you.

[bluesman]

13 hours ago, firedog said:

BTW, most Beatles albums are a good example of recordings made with zero intention of "sounding like a real performance"

The production is the performance - it’s just not a live performance.  This is a beautiful example of an artistic approach in which the producers, engineers etc are no less a part of the creative effort than the performers.  And you’d have to have heard the master in the studio in which it was made to judge the accuracy of reproduction through your system.

[mForMusic]

On 3/23/2021 at 2:11 PM, bluesman said:

The production is the performance - it’s just not a live performance.  This is a beautiful example of an artistic approach in which the producers, engineers etc are no less a part of the creative effort than the performers.  And you’d have to have heard the master in the studio in which it was made to judge the accuracy of reproduction through your system.

 

Then again, sound engineers usually don't aim for "perfect" sound on their system, but try to find a compromise that sounds okay on most systems of their target audience. And the systems they choose to help them do the job don't necessarily produce what we would call a good sound. So many recordings sound better on a high end home system (in a room with suitable) than in the studio - especially if they used Yamaha NS-10 monitors.

[bluesman]

27 minutes ago, mForMusic said:

So many recordings sound better on a high end home system (in a room with suitable) than in the studio - especially if they used Yamaha NS-10 monitors.

It's interesting that you cite the NS-10.  Most audiophiles today are unfamiliar with the origins and early days of this great little speaker.  It was a bust as a consumer product, but recording engineers picked up on it in the late '70s and it became a darling of the industry (replacing my beloved LS3/5as, which I bought new in '76 and still have).  The NS1000 was an even better speaker in many ways.  But it was big, heavy, and expensive ($1000 in 1976) - so it was also niche product with a limited market.  Yamaha didn't get the audiophile respect it deserved.  I had several of their high end audio products, including a B-2 amplifier that was truly outstanding.

 

[firedog]

https://www.stereo.net.au/reviews/review-yamaha-ns-5000-flagship-loudspeakers

New NS 5000, modern update of NS 1000

[bluesman]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

https://www.stereo.net.au/reviews/review-yamaha-ns-5000-flagship-loudspeakers

New NS 5000, modern update of NS 1000

I'm sure these are wonderful speakers.  I've always loved Yamaha's musical products - we bought our piano in 1980, and here it is today:

 

 

But that review is a typical example of the very problem I'm addressing in this series - he's so badly misinformed about the material he's using for evaluation that he hasn't a clue how far off base he is.  He's hearing things that aren't there, misinterpreting things that are, and assuming that instrumental placement is as accurate, correct and precise as it sounds.  Some of his observations are so ignorant and outlandish as to be laughable, e.g.

 

"Yes, I could just about see the resin fly from the strings of the violins and cello.  I could see if each of the four instruments was played with the left or right hand".  

 

So what do you think?  Can he not hear the difference between a violin and a viola?  Did the violist forget to put the rOsin (not resin, as he erroneously calls it) on his bow?  Or perhaps the Vegh Quartet is the only string quartet in the world with 3 violins and no viola.  And then there's the question of how many times he's seen anyone play a violin, viola, or cello with hands reversed (or, even better, with only one hand)?  Maybe he thinks that left handed violins abound (spoiler - they do not).  Even if he does know better, and this is just hyperbole (which I strongly doubt), it's a terrible approach to journalism.

 

Then we have his thoughts on the reproduction of Phl Collins' Separate Lives.  He's just plain wrong about many things here.  Start with this:  

 

"On most components, all you'll hear is Collins' voice. But on gear the quality of the NS-5000, you'll hear Martin's voice just behind Collin's, singing the same words at a lower intensity". 

 

Her voice is as integral, loud, and clear as his, from the first words ("You have no right...") - it's as evident from my iPhone as it is from my main system.  A quick listen on an old iPad to a low res YouTube version will confirm this for you.

 

And finally (since I can't stand thinking about this any more), he's so far off base on Joni's Shine that I want to scream! 

 

"As Mitchell's alluring voice joined the shimmering cymbals, mellow single guitar notes and sax, I recall that I had never heard this track with so much detail before. So much so, it was like hearing it for the first time because the NS-5000 gave me a new view into the music."

 

I must agree that if that's what he heard, it was exactly like hearing it for the first time....and hearing it underwater.  Unless my memory is truly shot (and her website suggests that it's not), the only musicians on that track are Brian Blade on percussion, James Taylor on acoustic guitar, and Joni on a mess of synthesizers.  George Graham also seems to agree with me in this review:

 

"She is in very good form on [the track named] Shine, her voice regaining some of its old sound, and her concern for the state of the world and especially the environment undiminished. But whether she will attract a new generation with this recording remains to be seen. Musically, it's hardly her best, and the dated-sounding synthesizers she uses to simulate various instruments sometimes sounds, dare I say, "low-budget" in the current day. She could easily have had her pick of the best studio players to join her, and concentrate on her distinctive guitar work, or even on acoustic piano."

 

This thread is about accuracy and realism in the reproduction of music.  Serendipitously, Peter Familari's NS5000 review, added by Firedog, focuses like a laser on these issues and uncovers some startling (at least, to me) but very common errors and assumptions in the mind of a suposedly seasoned audiophile and reviewer.  Sufficient facts are available to us about his chosen reference recordings to let us judge the accuracy of some combination of reviewer and equipment being reviewed.  I won't speculate on who's accurate and who's not - but if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Yamaha over Familari.

 

 

[fas42]

I've been a Yamaha fan for a long time - the Yamaha CDP I bought in 1986 was the breakthrough product that showed us how good digital playback could be ... it's taken the industry 3 decades to catch up to what they were getting right, way back then 🙂.

[manueljenkin]

When I think of spatial accuracy I think in two terms

 

1. Binaural music + diffuse field tone headphone (also making sure amplifier is powerful enough, a good dac+interpolation and that the transients are reproduced properly).

 

2. Otherwise I want to visualise how far the singer was from the microphone (generally about 3-10cm away). A manifold of spatial realism will remain in most cases despite all processing.

 

I think headphones are the champions when it comes to spatial accuracy.

 

So many things do help in making things better - especially lowering the noise from digital interfaces.

[bluesman]

12 hours ago, manueljenkin said:

I think headphones are the champions when it comes to spatial accuracy.

I agree, but only if the source program was recorded binaurally in a venue with excellent acoustics from a location with unhindered 360 degree exposure.

[manueljenkin]

40 minutes ago, bluesman said:

I agree, but only if the source program was recorded binaurally in a venue with excellent acoustics from a location with unhindered 360 degree exposure.

This recording is very good. I'm not even sure if it's really binaural but it sounds very realistic. Looking for an uncompressed version of it.

[Bill Brown]

17 hours ago, bluesman said:

I've always loved Yamaha's musical products - we bought our piano in 1980, and here it is today:

 

Hey!  We have one from their conservatory-series as well., bought in the late 90s when a music store my brother was working in was getting out of selling pianos.  Wonderful instrument.

 

Bill

[firedog]

14 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Hey!  We have one from their conservatory-series as well., bought in the late 90s when a music store my brother was working in was getting out of selling pianos.  Wonderful instrument.

 

Bill

My Mom had a baby grand  that we tried to sell after she passed. There was no market. Basically had to give it away so as not to pay a piano mover.

[Bill Brown]

59 minutes ago, bluesman said:

I agree, but only if the source program was recorded binaurally in a venue with excellent acoustics from a location with unhindered 360 degree exposure.

 

This is a thought I struggle with.  Modern, quality speakers are moving towards constant directivity, this a good approach that makes sense to me in terms of room spectral response (the reflections matching the spectral balance of the direct sound).  However, some of my fondest aural experiences were from when I owned a pair of Martin Logan CLS IIs in the mid 90s, that beam, of course, their directivity index (DI) not uniform, but increasing with frequency.  Also, as I noted in the other thread, I have always suppressed very early reflections (VERs).  I want to hear the ambience of well-recorded music and not superimpose confusing room acoustics on top of it.

 

Headphone listening is to me a paradox, the room completely gone, obviously.  Even without binaural recordings, I am able to "get inside" the acoustic and find it wonderful.  This applies to well-recorded classical and old jazz where the performers were together in a real space.  Of course this doesn't apply to hard pan-potted material (The Beatles, etc.) where the "pressure sensation" at the ears is troublesome, though mitigated to at least some degree with crossfeed.

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

Just now, firedog said:

My Mom had a baby grand  that we tried to sell after she passed. There was no market. Basically had to give it away so as not to pay a piano mover.

 

Wow.  That is unfortunate.  I would have wished there was a musician who would have been thrilled to get it.  In that case I probably would have moved it for them.  Would have been a wonderful gift.  Though perhaps there are less people now who would love to get it.

 

Bill

[firedog]

2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Wow.  That is unfortunate.  I would have wished there was a musician who would have been thrilled to get it.  In that case I probably would have moved it for them.  Would have been a wonderful gift.  Though perhaps there are less people now who would love to get it.

 

Bill

My understanding is that the market is now very limited. Many fewer people play than once upon a time (fewer taking lessons), electric pianos are now very good and way more convenient, and grands, baby grands,and even uprights are just too big for most people. There's still a small market for really top end instruments, but if you just have a "good" used one - there are a lot of them available from estate sales, etc. and they just aren't worth much.

[bluesman]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

My understanding is that the market is now very limited. Many fewer people play than once upon a time (fewer taking lessons), electric pianos are now very good and way more convenient, and grands, baby grands,and even uprights are just too big for most people. There's still a small market for really top end instruments, but if you just have a "good" used one - there are a lot of them available from estate sales, etc. and they just aren't worth much.

From Statista:

 

 

From the New York Times:

 

"The high-water mark of piano sales in America was 1909, when 364,500 new acoustic pianos were sold in the country. Since then, radio, television, recordings and instrument technology transformed the way music is created and consumed. Only about 30,000 new acoustic pianos are now sold here each year, but the number surpasses a million when all digital varieties are included."

 

The end of the last sentence says it all.  Almost no one would rather have an old acoustic piano when "...a full-size digital piano with 88 touch-sensitive keys, Bluetooth MIDI capabilities, an iOS app and two improved built-in speakers" can be had for $200 brand new.   A digital piano requires no maintenance, while an acoustic piano has to be tuned and the many moving parts require replacement after years of use.  If left in a location with low humidity (<35%, which is above the range in most homes with forced air HVAC, even with a typical central humidifier), a piano's wooden parts will dry out, shrink, and crack.  Worse, many lower cost acoustic pianos simply don't sound very good at their best.

 

The best source of free older pianos and electric organs in the last 20 years of the 20th century was schools and religious institutions, who replaced fleets of maintenance-intensive pianos and old style organs with digital keyboards in practice rooms and all but the most stately auditoriums.  I was offered an amazing array of Hammonds and huge Leslie cabinets if I'd just come and get them, but even in a 4000 sq foot house we had nowhere to put them where they wouldn't stick out like sore thumbs.

[Bill Brown]

20 minutes ago, bluesman said:

Almost no one would rather have an old acoustic piano when "...a full-size digital piano with 88 touch-sensitive keys, Bluetooth MIDI capabilities, an iOS app and two improved built-in speakers" can be had for $200 brand new. 

 

I would :)

 

But yes, your post is spot-on and comprehensive, as usual.

 

Bill

[fas42]

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Headphone listening is to me a paradox, the room completely gone, obviously.  Even without binaural recordings, I am able to "get inside" the acoustic and find it wonderful.  This applies to well-recorded classical and old jazz where the performers were together in a real space.  Of course this doesn't apply to hard pan-potted material (The Beatles, etc.) where the "pressure sensation" at the ears is troublesome, though mitigated to at least some degree with crossfeed.

 

Bill

 

Very few people understand, or appreciate that speakers also do this. Why this is so is that the playback chain has to be on its best behaviour to be capable of realising this - very rarely found in the wild, 😉.

 

I can't abide headphones - they add nothing to the quality of the experience, compared to what capable speakers do - and are just a pain in the ars... er, the ears 🙂.

[Bill Brown]

@fas42, with all due respect, you are a nut!

 

Bill

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

@fas42, with all due respect, you are a nut!

 

Bill

 

Right, you've never experienced how convincing speaker playback can be ... got it! 😜

[audiobomber]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Right, you've never experienced how convincing speaker playback can be ... got it! 😜

 Laptop speakers?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

 Laptop speakers?

 

What do you think?

[audiobomber]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What do you think?

I think you think so.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

I think you think so.

 

And where have I said, "Laptop speakers give me convincing playback"? As compared to, "Laptop speakers are good enough to pick things in the SQ" ...

[Bill Brown]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

Right, you've never experienced how convincing speaker playback can be ... got it! 😜

 

Oh Lordy :)

 

Last night I was wondering if it would be interesting to hear your system, and you hear mine (though it is far from perfect).