Super Lumina Speaker Cable. More HiFi Less Music?

so, seems there is no real mileage in using live music as yardstick for musical quality then -- especially when the music is pumped through some PA amps and what have you. seems just like another hifi system with its own attendant problems, room acoustic issues etc.

and yes, how many time have we heard here and elsewhere -- folks (including myself) eulogizing about how good their system at home sounds and how close to 'live music' etc etc... seems to me this may not be saying much at all.

a norm (for want of a better word) that i have often found useful and more meaningful is how close the sound i a, hearing is to the real instrument -- without any amplification, in a reasonably benign location. i can claim i know the way a trumpet sounds because i play it -- so when i hear the same characteristics reproduced by my system -- i'm happy.

so seems 'believability' may provide us with a way forward???

just my 2c worth...

enjoy

ken

nigelb posted:

...

So, on reflection, do I want to replicate exactly a live performance in my home? I am not sure I do. But me think some more about that one.

interesting thoughts Nigelb and thanks for sharing experience with live music in your small pub and another larger one that you sometimes visit. you make me feel rather good that my listening room is quite small and full of all sorts of office equipment -- and then the active system on top of that...!!

it all sounds quite good to me though...

enjoy

ken

I'm struggling to find the write way of saying this so I'll just spit it out and hope to repair the damage afterwards.

I do actually understand this PRaT thing but don't understand the importance with which it is held. . I got on the nDAC, NDX, NDS ride with all the superchargers added. And then I realised that none of it sounded as much like the real thing as either of the turntables that I had with any amplification that I chose to use. THEY sounded more like violins and piano playing as I'd expect to here them in my head. Considerations of timing and rhythm don't come into it. It either sounds like the musicians or it sound less like the musicians. To me the Naim digital sounds like a distorted perspective of what actually is recorded and that it flatters to deceive. It's all very well having that up close miked sound with reduced decay and I liked it until I realised that all my different versions of music sounded too similar with an almost generic violin sound. PRaT is all well and good but it isn't necessarily accurate. It certainly shifts black boxes on a A-B comparison. Of course, if it does what you like, then all well and good and no amount of fiddling with the perspective is going to make Rod Stewart sound like anyone else.  But , for example, I grew up listening to certain violinists and was finding that I couldn't recognise their sound anymore. The music sounded great at first but I was losing a dimension that vinyl couldn't lose. 

And so when people nominate their 'Tracks that show good PRaT' it just sounds like 'Tracks that justify the expense'. I'd like my system to show all the slow shifting colours of a Sibelius tone poem.

Frankly, given that Julian Vereker was spurred on to design amplifiers because his friends recorded instruments  all sounded the same on other kit, I surprised that Naim has moved so far away where all violins have lost their sound and everyone talks about PRaT as a prime objective. Leave the timing to the musicians.

Problem is, unless you have crammed an orchestra into your living room how can you tell if your hi-fi sounds like the real thing?

I would be amazed if a turntable can produce the recorded signal with more accuracy than a quality digital source... I still prefer vinyl but I do realise that that is because of its inaccurate presentation and added warmth that comes from the inaccuracies.

If you've been to a live concert- or to be rigorous about it, a few live concerts in different venues, or at least sitting in different positions to iron out variations, you'll have a pretty good idea of what an orchestra sounds like. 

I'd say the same with rock music, though maybe a bit more live experience might be beneficial as the chances of adverse PA effects are greater.

And yes, memory of sound is not precise - which in this context is good, because you cant re-create the concert hall and live ambience in a living room,  but you can get a pretty good illusion. What matters is that it satisfies your need - and that, perhaps, is where if it doesnt sound 'real' it is all too easy to get hooked on a permanent path of needing to improve.

Now turning to something I know many will disagree with - the above considerations, for me, dictate getting the speakers right before worrying too much about other nuances (provided source is reasonably good, and amplification has due grip on the speakers) because the speakers have the biggest effect on the overall character of the sound. Then focus on improving the clarity, getting all there is out of the recording as unchanged as possible - and all timing related matters should fall into their naturally recorded audible place...

"Then focus on improving the clarity, getting all there is out of the recording as unchanged as possible - and all timing related matters should fall into their naturally recorded audible place..."

Exactly the point I was fumbling around.

Minh Nguyen posted:

Steve, You have interesting times ahead. I look forward to meeting you on the 27th ATB Minh

I'm going to try and make it Minh, the house purchase allowing. We're trying to complete before the SDLT goes up  on April 5th. 

k90tour2 posted:

' For me, anything that is emphasising timing by reducing decay is tinkering with the recording." 

 

I think this is a very insightful observation about one aspect of the strengths and weaknesses of NAC A5

Michael_B. posted:

k90tour2 posted:

' For me, anything that is emphasising timing by reducing decay is tinkering with the recording." 

 

I think this is a very insightful observation about one aspect of the strengths and weaknesses of NAC A5

i dont really understand how a designer can emphasize 'timing'by reducing 'decay'.

As far as i know, each audio component has to perform correctly in both time domain (where transient response is important) and frequency domain. The time domain is that which leads to expressions such as 'fast' -- this to me merely means that the component/circuit responds quickly/consistently to changes in the input signal.  i really cannot see how just the decay can be manipulated in isolation. Transient response as a whole is either 'correct' or not correct. If not correct, this means there are some extraneous effects that are causing the signal time domain response to be affected by other extraneous issues -- other than the signal itself.

Given that the a speaker cable is part of the whole circuit -- i can see how this can affect time domain response -- if the cable doesnt have the correct electrical properties.  whether this is so or not in the case of the SL speaker cable -- of course i dont know as i dont have this at home. I cannot say i have noticed the SL IC or the snaxo 4-4 having timing issues-- but of course i cannot extrapolate from this to the SL speaker cable. hopefully one of these days i will get a change to listen to them in my system... dream on Ken... :-)

my 2c worth...

enjoy...

ken

Hi Ken, 

my my comment was merely to highlight k90's recognition that some of the NACA5's impressive slam and leading edge emphasis is due to its stilted and unnatural reproduction of decay and therefore timbre - this is more noticeable on acoustic than electronic instruments.

cheers

Mike

k90tour2 posted:

I'm struggling to find the write way of saying this so I'll just spit it out and hope to repair the damage afterwards.

I do actually understand this PRaT thing but don't understand the importance with which it is held. . I got on the nDAC, NDX, NDS ride with all the superchargers added. And then I realised that none of it sounded as much like the real thing as either of the turntables that I had with any amplification that I chose to use. THEY sounded more like violins and piano playing as I'd expect to here them in my head. Considerations of timing and rhythm don't come into it. It either sounds like the musicians or it sound less like the musicians. To me the Naim digital sounds like a distorted perspective of what actually is recorded and that it flatters to deceive. It's all very well having that up close miked sound with reduced decay and I liked it until I realised that all my different versions of music sounded too similar with an almost generic violin sound. PRaT is all well and good but it isn't necessarily accurate. It certainly shifts black boxes on a A-B comparison. Of course, if it does what you like, then all well and good and no amount of fiddling with the perspective is going to make Rod Stewart sound like anyone else.  But , for example, I grew up listening to certain violinists and was finding that I couldn't recognise their sound anymore. The music sounded great at first but I was losing a dimension that vinyl couldn't lose. 

And so when people nominate their 'Tracks that show good PRaT' it just sounds like 'Tracks that justify the expense'. I'd like my system to show all the slow shifting colours of a Sibelius tone poem.

Frankly, given that Julian Vereker was spurred on to design amplifiers because his friends recorded instruments  all sounded the same on other kit, I surprised that Naim has moved so far away where all violins have lost their sound and everyone talks about PRaT as a prime objective. Leave the timing to the musicians.

 Nice write up. 

 To clarify you are talking about Naim digital sources, not the Naim amplifiers?

In my experience over the years, including starting my career with a short time spent at the the then new Maida Vale recording studios at the BBC, PRaT is simply a manifestation of an accurate audio replay system and room acoustics. Blurring, phase smearing, over hangs, resonances, non accurate tonal balances will dilute the timing.. The brain works harder and in essence  sounds more like noise to us than music.... there was no voodoo or magic or special focus on rising edges, fast decays and other mumbo jumbo ... all this would distorted the sound and diluted the musical content as far as our brains go. PRaT is not specifically about musical timing... But clearly if the sound is distorted through not exhibiting ' PRaT' then  you won't hear much if any musical timing and nuance assuming it's there in the first place. A system exhibiting good PRaT can work well provide spatial positioning of audio within a 'live' reverberant stereo recording.. And there is no music involved at all.

Simon

I take another lens to this in that a few years back I was in a pub with a jazz band (instrumental only). The main room was perhaps 40ft deep, with the band shoehorned in a corner. The sound close to was percussive, bright and, of course, very 'live'. At the rear of the room it was very different, much smoother, in many ways better resolved.  

Question is, do you want a system which sits you at the front or near to, or further back. I prefer the front but to my ears, NACA5 in my room at home, over-elevated the brighter aspects. Very good but SL is better IMV in balancing things out.

Morning Peter (911GT3R).

Phil

Hi Analoguemusic

Yes, I have digital sources in mind but it may well be a house sound even down to cables.

I tested my  old NDS against various other sources using rips of Bach organ music. With just about everything else you could hear the organ and acoustic together. The NDS worked so hard at bringing the organ out of context that you would never recognise the building that housed it. Some may have called that improved PRaT but if the reverb is on the recording, I would like to have it. I doubt if an organ enthusiast would have been able to recognise the organ and location.

i understand what you are saying Simon, but I don't think it is the job of the hi if to improve the work of the recording engineers.

Richard.

hi richard

whuch ripping software did you use?

even the method of ripping can change audibly the sound and fine detail such as reverbs

i started a thread called secure mode vs burst mode for ripping CD.

to my delight I found that a properly ripped cd has a lot of musical information and fine detail 

"

I've heard SL vs Naca and yes it's a fuller, richer sound.

But I have a question - is the object of a hi-fidelity system not to listen to music at it's best - so how can something be too hi-fi and less music?

Ask Naim. I think they first coined the phrase.

I take your point but what's the point of listening to music if there is no emotional attachment?

Okay - I get that.  But let's say it that way.  

I thought I had in the OP. 

Steve J posted:

".....what's the point of listening to music if there is no emotional attachment?"

I am right there with you Steve as otherwise it is just "muzak to my ears".

RIchard

ken c posted:

k90tour2 posted:

I've never come out of the Barbican Hall and thought  "Great PRaT, I'll come again". I think I'd better grab a hard hat now, I think.

 

neither have i -- and good point i think...

but it begs the question -- we have all this lingo to describe the way our hifi systems sound. what language do we use then to describe live music. this could bring some reality into this whole discussion?

enjoy

ken

Neither have I but I have come out of a concert saying, my word they were tight tonight, which to my mind covers at least some of it.  To my mind its all about balance (not the nob) and no one musical attribute should dominate any others