Can Loudspeakers Accurately Reproduce The Sound Of Real Instruments...and Do You Care?

[MattHooper]

It's really a question of when diminishing returns kick in IMO,

Yeah, and that's going to be both a technical and personal call of course.

I replaced an old but very good micro seiki turntable with a modern high-mass turntable, better cartridge etc. The new turntable does sound "better" to me, but in no way would I describe it as a "large" sonic difference. It sounds cleaner with a sense of higher fidelity, and I rate the difference subjectively significant. But there's definitely a diminishing return kicking in.

 

[Hifi]

And.... out of respect for the author and original post ....

Can Loudspeakers Accurately Reproduce The Sound Of Real Instruments...and Do You Care?

I think the author does care and . . . Who wouldn’t care?

 

[Hifi]

So.... Question for Matt....

You have your own budget speakers and indicated that they have outperformed other speakers you have listened to even including some 20k price range stuff. Is it possible that you have done things in your personal listening space to give your speakers, with good timbrel qualities, a better chance to perform well including their timbre qualities?

 

[MattHooper]

Sometimes the subtleties revealed in vinyl playback are more noticeable than on digital playback of same music ...to my ears in my listening room. There is no way anyone can make a “blanket” statement that All CDs and digital music sound better than vinyl because “distortion “. I have some very quiet vinyl.

Related to the thread topic of tone: there is just something about the sound of many vinyl records that to my ears recreates something "believable" at least in some ways. Most sound reproduction sounds like what it is: A recording. Canned. Vinyl surprisingly often seems to slightly break through that barrier just a bit more. I was comparing a nice vinyl version of Herbie Hancock's Chameleon with my (also very good sounding) CD version. On the CD it sounded clean and clear, but...like a super clear recording. It didn't "share the air in the room" as it were. The vinyl version just had this texture and tone that sounded a bit more like it broke out of the "recorded" quality to "what a drum snare" sounds like being hit in front of me. Rub your hands or fingers together, that papery, fleshy, organic "uncanned" tone. That's what I tend to hear more in lots of vinyl albums.
When I listen closely to the digital version I can hear the slightly greater accuracy and purity, it's just a bit more descriptive of the tonal nuances of every instrument. The vinyl version just slightly homogenized in comparison. But the vinyl version is homogenized in a way that, while the precise sound of the original drum snare may be slightly less preserved, the sense of a 'real drum' snare popping out of the recording space seems to take little step forward.

I'd think a first obvouis culperate for the sonic difference might be the different EQ curve used for mastering vinyl. But my sense it that it's more than that - that somewhere along the whole process of creating and playing back vinyl, some interesting conglomeration of distortions is being picked up that give that "vinyl texture" I'm trying to put in to words.

 

[MattHooper]

So.... Question for Matt....

You have your own budget speakers and indicated that they have outperformed other speakers you have listened to even including some 20k price range stuff. Is it possible that you have done things in your personal listening space to give your speakers, with good timbrel qualities, a better chance to perform well including their timbre qualities?

First, I don't think my experience of liking what I have at home over more expensive gear is novel, or even speaks necessarily to the quality of my system. I'm quite sure many here have heard expensive "audiophile" systems that they would not take over what they own.

Anyway, as to my room: Yes, it was renovated and re-designed with the input of a professional acoustician.

I actually had a discouraging encounter with the power of room acoustics. For years I'd used the front room of our house, our living room, as my two channel listening room. It's not a big room, only 13' wide and 15' deep at it's deepest (bay windows). Fortunately there is a large, wide open entrance to the room which, I believe, has helped the room seem less "small" acoustically. It never seemed to matter what speaker I put in the room, from stand mounted to full range floor stander, I always got excellent, even sound (several speaker manufacturers who visited expressed amazement at how well this room worked).

Then when I wanted to do a reno to make it also work with home theater, it necessitated switching the listening sofa and speakers 180 degrees.
When I first did this my heart broke. Things sounded like shit! Big suckout somewhere in the lower mid, other unevenness, the richness gone.
I didn't even want to listen.

But it was the only set up that would also allow me to do a projection screen in there, so I did a major reno with an acoustically knowledgeable architect and an acoustician. There's acoustic treatment "built in" to the ceiling, in to the wall behind the speakers, a nice mix of live and dead surfaces, and I have thick curtains on tracks that can be pulled along side walls to gather at any point to help reduce any problematic side wall reflections.

It's worked out fantastic. I now get probably the best sound I've ever had in my room.

(And I suspect that due to the room being very nice acoustically, and my ability to modulate the liveness of the room, this helps me get good performance from speakers of various radiation patterns, including the MBL speakers which have been accused of sounding too bright in some "normal" rooms).

 

[Blumlein 88]

Related to the thread topic of tone: there is just something about the sound of many vinyl records that to my ears recreates something "believable" at least in some ways. Most sound reproduction sounds like what it is: A recording. Canned. Vinyl surprisingly often seems to slightly break through that barrier just a bit more. I was comparing a nice vinyl version of Herbie Hancock's Chameleon with my (also very good sounding) CD version. On the CD it sounded clean and clear, but...like a super clear recording. It didn't "share the air in the room" as it were. The vinyl version just had this texture and tone that sounded a bit more like it broke out of the "recorded" quality to "what a drum snare" sounds like being hit in front of me. Rub your hands or fingers together, that papery, fleshy, organic "uncanned" tone. That's what I tend to hear more in lots of vinyl albums.
When I listen closely to the digital version I can hear the slightly greater accuracy and purity, it's just a bit more descriptive of the tonal nuances of every instrument. The vinyl version just slightly homogenized in comparison. But the vinyl version is homogenized in a way that, while the precise sound of the original drum snare may be slightly less preserved, the sense of a 'real drum' snare popping out of the recording space seems to take little step forward.

I'd think a first obvouis culperate for the sonic difference might be the different EQ curve used for mastering vinyl. But my sense it that it's more than that - that somewhere along the whole process of creating and playing back vinyl, some interesting conglomeration of distortions is being picked up that give that "vinyl texture" I'm trying to put in to words.

I've mentioned before how a few friends and myself in the 1990's got together pre-recorded RTR, LP and CD in as many albums as we could all scrounge together. The equipment was pretty good and we did this more than once with different gear. RTR was always a Revox. To our surprise the basic tonal balance and other aspects of RTR and CD were pretty close. RTR had some noise, and I can't say CD and RTR sounded identical, but in the same ballpark. LP......odd man out, out in left field beyond the confines of the ballpark. We didn't find a single LP that sounded at all like RTR or CD. Sometimes the LP was "better", or more musically engaging. Sometimes not, sometimes worse and sometimes just different. It damn sure was different. And I think this lets out tape as the main reason they are different. Clearly mastering (invented for LP essentially) is very different for LP. Summed bass, sometimes different settings for inner grooves. Then there was the thread over on the WTB forums. A new LP was measured on first play and subsequent plays. Highs diminished rapidly with just a few plays. I forget the specifics.

Nothing wrong with preferring LP, but it clearly is lower fidelity. It clearly is very colored. Maybe artfully colored at its best. Again okay, but it would be nice if someone did a thorough job of taking a CD and using DSP to give it the LP sound. Lots of tape plug ins, but what is needed is the LP plug in for playback software.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Sometimes the subtleties revealed in vinyl playback are more noticeable than on digital playback of same music ...to my ears in my listening room. There is no way anyone can make a “blanket” statement that All CDs and digital music sound better than vinyl because “distortion “. I have some very quiet vinyl.

Yeh, and I didn't mean to comment on what sounds better to people. Was just speaking to the fidelity of the two media - no comment from me on what people should prefer An interesting consequence of the fact that decent digital is transparent is that, if you prefer the sound of your vinyl setup, you can rip your vinyls o digital and there will be no audible change in sound from the vinyl playback to the digital rip.

 

[MRC01]

Sometimes the subtleties revealed in vinyl playback are more noticeable than on digital playback of same music ...to my ears in my listening room. ...

With classical music, vinyl is sometimes more dynamically compressed than digital recordings. I find that vinyl is typically EQed a bit differently with a subtle lift in the presence region. Both of these contribute to perceptually elevating low level detail.

... there is just something about the sound of many vinyl records that to my ears recreates something "believable" at least in some ways. Most sound reproduction sounds like what it is: A recording. Canned. Vinyl surprisingly often seems to slightly break through that barrier just a bit more. ...

I have the opposite perception. My best vinyl recordings sound excellent, but in comparison with my best digital recordings, the vinyl is less realistic, more "hi-fi" sounding where the digital sounds more natural. There is a level of natural realism that a few of my best digital recordings have, that I've never heard in vinyl.

... An interesting consequence of the fact that decent digital is transparent is that, if you prefer the sound of your vinyl setup, you can rip your vinyls o digital and there will be no audible change in sound from the vinyl playback to the digital rip.

+1 to that. I made high quality digital recordings of all the vinyl I had that was worth listening to, before getting rid of it. I still listen to and enjoy it. I can share samples, if anyone is interested. It would be fun to hear digital recordings of "best vinyl" from a few other folks here.

 

[MattHooper]

I have the opposite perception. My best vinyl recordings sound excellent, but in comparison with my best digital recordings, the vinyl is less realistic, more "hi-fi" sounding where the digital sounds more natural. There is a level of natural realism that a few of my best digital recordings have, that I've never heard in vinyl.

I totally understand. If I focus on certain aspects of my digital stuff it can sound more believable. I've had many amazing experiences with digital music, which has been my main source in my high end systems since the early 90's.

 

[MRC01]

My personal conversion to preferring digital started around 1999, which, perhaps not coincidentally, was when I first got Magnepan 3.6 speakers. My audiophile friends tease me saying it also coincides with the start of gradual age related hearing deterioration.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I can share samples, if anyone is interested. It would be fun to hear digital recordings of "best vinyl" from a few other folks here.

I’d be keen to hear!

 

[MRC01]

Here's one snippet I posted recently here: Dizzy Gillespie Big 4.
I will track down & post a few more. Anyone else want to share?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Here's one snippet I posted recently here: Dizzy Gillespie Big 4.
I will track down & post a few more. Anyone else want to share?

Sounds great. I found the same recording on Spotify, but a 2013 remaster. Your vinyl rip sounds better to me, it has a better tonal balance and (my feeling anyway) more DR. Not that any conclusions can be drawn from a comparison between an original vinyl master and a digital remaster of course. But interesting to hear the difference.

 

[TG1]

Vinyl? Given what's going on mechanically on the surface of a record at the microscopic level, I find it amazing it works as well as it does.

Imagine a tiny needle having to hover above a spinning target, moving back and forth through a groove less than a millimetre thick at up to 20,000 times per second - in two perpendicular planes simultaneously. The fact that it works at all I find mind-boggling

Like a lot of technological advance i also find it mind boggling. Not just the achievements but the pace at which the advances are made. It's strange thing that in the UK engineers are barely respected and most people have no conception of what engineering is. If you discuss anything like this with most people they think you are nuts, but the whole modern world was built by people who can't let things go.