Unexpected Results

Some records will get better and better, others will get to a certain level, and even  with better gear, they will sound like they did on the previous system.

One important virtue of a Naim system is that you can play and enjoy bad recordings, so no need to have 100 albums, where the 90 are music you do not like, but it really does show up what the hifi is capable of doing.

today I heard Peter Gabriel Plays live, a fantastic record I have owned since about 1990. this sounded much better than I remember, and I am not in any way trying to get back to my life in the 90s when I was in my 20s.

Som e music I was extremely fund of in my youth, gets rarely played. Elvis Costello and the  Smiths, but that has nothing to do with the quality of my system. And some time I will play and enjoy the  albums Again.

Claus

I would agree with that if you are talking about stuff that has been brick walled to hell. For other recordings which were in the past maybe a bit thin, or bright, or flat, or mushy, the rule of thumb for me has been that the better the quality of the components, the more you tend to be drawn into how it was arranged and played, as opposed to HiFi stuff like brightness, imaging, staging etc. If a system is playing back in such a way that the listener feels it is selecting what it prefers to play, something could be wrong. Particularly a 552/500 combination - one of the most transparent and least selective pre/power pairs I have heard.  Of course, it might not be the system at all. We've surely all had days/weeks/months like that.

Don't forget that most music is made by talented people who consider themselves as Artists'.

Cezanne never outlined any form in his paintings with a distinct line - more a mix of coloured accents to suggest form. A visual distortion and compression to create space.

taken on face value bad recordings can make the message in some music more real, especially if the content is gritty and about life struggles or wrong choices.

Compositional pieces with real musical value and recording qualities no doubt offer more with quality replay, but some recordings with " hifi"  high resolution can come across as contrived and have purpose only to tickle us which great hi fi.

If I had a 500 system, I would think of it as a tool to look further into music.  If I started to think that something was missing" that would mean new music is needed to enjoy.

What is the meaning of the dynamic range figures quoted (not just by you Iconoclast, but in general)?

How are they determined (as the filtering algorithm used will have an enormous effect on the resulting value)?

And how are they supposed to relate to quality?

To take as an extreme example, a red-book encoded signal of a very heavily compressed track encoded at near to maximum level but containing a pregnant pause could have a DR of more than 80dB.  Does this make it good?

Well, thank you, Yoda.  I will stand my ground nonetheless.  Choices made in ones audio system are no doubt a factor here, as well as subjective preference.  For example, I shy away from speakers where reviews use terms such as honest, offering huge detail and alike, those terms in particular scare the crap out of me.  Such reviews have lead me to audition speakers of that ilk in the past, and they've all been terrible, and regardless of recording quality.  When a speaker review refers to things like musicality, smoothness, strong dynamics, mid-range performance, then I start to pay attention with regard to the shortlist.  

Perhaps I am guilty of burying my head in the sand when listening, but when I play music, however bad the recording, I want it to be enjoyable, not to reveal all of the flaws as vividly as possible.  I believe this can be achieved using the highest quality electronics, and the highest quality speakers, but purely in my own judgement.  At any price point, I could create a sound I was happy with relative to the cost.

Absolutely +1

You're welcome Anakin.

SJB

 Clearly, the force is strong with you.

I find I have different "listening moods."  I haven't thought of names for these yet, but sometimes I listen with the inocence of my youth, and am swept away by the spirit of the music.  At these times is the "suspension of disbelief" most effective.  This happens a lot (for example) on those many evenings when my wife and I crank up the tunes and dance.  Other times, I find myself paying attention to the musicianship and the crafting of the tune.  I am noticing the interpretation of a tune, or the interaction between musicians.  Then there are times when I am listening in a more analytical fashion:  I am noticing, or trying to hear, the recording technique, or mic position, or digital replay, or cartridge, or turntable, or electronics, or speaker attributes, or room effect, or vibration artifacts.  (It is amazing that the ear/brain system is able to unravel these many contributors to the sound of replay!).  

I have found that I can reach the "swept away" state by good music played on almost any balanced system, fom iPod to car stereo to a home hifi at any level.  

My system is perhaps half way "up the ladder" of cost and sophistication in hifi terms.  Like most on this forum, I have been continually upgrading the fidelity of replay, either by trading for more expensive equipment, or through my own efforts in setup and so forth.  (I also have worked in the industry and have developed and built my own speakers - which perhaps adds to my involvement with analytical listening).  In the last couple of years my system has reached new levels (for me) of "convincing replay" where voices, instruments and sounds become more convincingly real upon replay.  I have enjoyed this very much.  

This higher level of convincing replay has had an interesting effect In two ways:  First, it is very evident on some (even most) recordings or passages, and by contrast other recordings or passages exhibit more of the flaws in replay.  Secondly, as sounds become more "real" I find myself expecting to hear the real thing.  That is, the bar seems to have been raised.  As consequence, there is the potential that every improvement in convincing musical replay leads to a desire to go even further, because my ears are being exposed to what is possible.  Fortunately, this effect occurs during my analytical listening moods, but I still can be swept away as ever by that music that "grabs me."  

Yesterday I had my system playing my collection on random, providing a sound track to my day as 

I was doing chores in the house.  When I heard "Gold Dust Wonan" from Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours," I had to sit down at once and just listen.  Wow.  I have heard that song maybe hundreds of times, but it still captivates me.  And the cool thing is (not having heard it for quite a while) I have never heard it sound so good!

Charlie

Disclaimer: I never listen to compressed audio files, my only sources are FM, CD and vinyl. Guess it shows my age!

I agree that on average, poor recordings will often sound worse on a good system than on a basic one.

This said, I've heard - and had - systems at different price levels that were more forgiving than others. In my case, Rega Planar 3/Nagaoka MP50/A&R Cambridge A60/Harbeth HL Mk III comes to mind. As does my current setup. Both systems were good at everything - great recordings and poor ones, old and new stuff, classical, jazz, rock...

That didn't happen very often in my journey through the Naim upgrade ladder, and it's enough to make me hesitate to change anything. Not ever DR'ing the 552 and the 300, which would be the most obvious upgrades at this point.

And yes, I get emotional listening to Led Zeppelin I from time to time.

Claude, I think you'll find the music on your CDs is compressed. 

I think Claude might mean lossy encoded audio files...

There seems to be some music which, do to production and mastering, just sounds terrible to my ears, though this can be a matter of personal taste.  Yet there are recordings of dubious "fidelity" which are redeemed by the musical performance.  So, for me I avoid any recordings which are not musically pleasing - and the pleasing ones may vary widely in technical quality.

Having said that, there have been times when my system has sounded wonderful on well-recorded recordings, but some of my old favorites sounded too harsh.  This was in my role as loudspeaker designer that I learned one cannot just build a speaker which measures "flat."  One must listen to a wide variety of music.  Changes to a speaker, when judged by measurement seem subtle, can profoundly affect they enjoyment of replay.  In this regard I fully agree with SongStream above - we must have similar tastes in speakers.

So if more revealing systems seem unforgiving of musically worthwhile recordings, this could be the result of loudspeakers.

Charlie

I agree with what most are saying here...

A totally ''flat'' speaker is not always the best option (unless you're a sound engineer)

If you never took the time to explore it, and as you grow older, classical and other more obscure genres can help revive your interest in music. There's a whole lot of stuff worth digging for.

However...

You'll probably never feel the way you did about music or anything for that matter the way you did  when you were in your youth. I remember the first record I got was the Beatles Ticket to Ride 45. I played it in loop for days/weeks jumping up and down each time. This was on a $10 ''suitcase'' record player.

As was the case with my first real audio system - the first new car I bought was a Honda back in 1979. I drove the c**p out of it. I then moved up to a series 5 BMW. More comfortable, much better performance - the self proclaimed Ultimate Driving Machine(and status symbol). Yet somehow I recall having more fun in the Honda. Was the BMW too civilized or was I just less enthusiastic than with my first new car?

Am I unusual then, in still feeling the same now, a tad over 60, as I did about music at the age of 16? That was when I first went to a live gig (Deep Purple), and I would go tomorrow if they were playing anywhere realistically within reach. And I still like the same music I first bought, and the only reason I don't play any individual record as often is because I have so many other things now from which to choose, my taste has widened slightly over the years, but not much- still far more genres I don't like than do - the biggest addition was discovering opera about 20 years ago, which I could never relate to in my teens, though I liked the music (it was a live experience that converted me).

My HiFi is considerably more refined now than my first system (at ~age 15), but whilst realism has improved, my enjoyment of the music played through is actually the same.

Innocent Bystander, if you are unusual, then I must be unusual with you.. In fact I probably appreciate music more now than when I did when I was 16. When I was younger music had all the associations that went with it.. Girls, parties, rebellion, growing up, wanting to be different...  and that was all fun and significant for me.. But now I appreciate the music more for what is, rather than what it was representing or invoking in me when I was younger...

A third unusual person then,

If anything with nearly 54 years under the bridge, I find music at least as involving and important to me as at any time.

In fact some music means much more to me than the most important music for me in past times.

I also admit to being far less tolerant of a good deal of music these days. As if my patience has run out with the kitsch! There is an awful lot of kitsch music out there, but the most significant music really only yields its secrets slowly, so that as greater understanding and familiarity of this most mysterious music only deepens its significance. I do not believe it is given to any of us to do more than grasp a significant proportion of the meaning of the greatest music, and its fascination and importance can be found to increase through-out a whole human lifetime! This why a very old performer can produce better musical performances than their younger colleagues, despite greater physical frailty, provided they have never settled into a rut about how to perform the music but let their performance evolve as their understanding has deepened. 

In a strange way, the more the music is loved the easier it is to listen to it in less than perfect performances and replay systems. Of course there is a basic minimum, but I would call that as being something like an earphone set on a Sony Walkman ...

But it is nice to have loudspeaker replay. It is physically more comfortable for many of us!

ATB from George

Opera is the last genre I ever thought I'd enjoy listening to. Fat ladies and burly dudes screaming their lungs out in Italian. How the hell can anybody listen to that?

Now I'm constantly on the lookout for new opera music and I've come to realize that, hey, some those fat ladies are actually hot babes.

 But - as much as I do enjoy it I don't play and sing along to any one record in a loop for days.

Actually you're right, and I think it's probably fair to say I appreciate music more now, in some ways - back in my early days of discovering music, all I listened to was the sound - I may have sung along with the words (when I could make them out - 'scuse me while I kiss the sky or 'scuse me while I kiss this guy?), but some time along the way I started to listen to the words, and when they resonated that made the music more intense.

Exactly!

But when my love of music was combined with my love of theatre, to have the power and emotion of fantastic music, a meaningful story, the human voice, and live theatre, all rolled into one, perhaps it isn't surprising that I couldn't hold back the tears, for the first time in my life oblivious to the fact that I was in a public place As the tears rolled freely.  Turandot, my conversion: a masterpiece. And now whenever I play it at home, it is close enough to trigger all the emotions again, even though the live theatre is missing. And many others. But I haven't found the same with comic opera, enjoyable but without the emotional high of tragic opera.

40 years ago I'd have flatly dismissed any suggestion that I might ever like opera - now for me it is the ultimate in live entertainment. hOwever, whilst live is the pinnacle,  unless I know it well I only really enjoy it with (English) surtitles, which usually means original non-English production: apart from the fact that the original Italian, or whatever, sounds right, if sung in English without surtitles I find myself straining to follow the words and missing the music and drama. I have seen La Boheme as a small production in Italy, without subtitles, and thoroughly enjoyed it - but only because I know it well enough. 

When I was a kid I learnt violin, but not very well, and not to any great standard, and I was very 'wooden' In my playing. Partly I didn't enjoy the music I was having to play (and meanwhile I was envious of friends learning the much mor 'hip' guitar), but perhaps mainly didn't really appreciate what I was doing. When I gave up my parents said I'd regret it, which I denied - but of course they were right. Fast-track to a few years ago:I dug out my old violin (well, not the original, but that's another story...) and started to teach myself to play again. And i amazed myself with what I was doing: not playing particularly well, but putting myself into it 100%, and that alone making it both better, and thoroughly enjoyable. I've promised myself that when I retire I will do it seriously, and indeed cello, my son's instrument, and a few other instruments too.

So true!

When I was 25 I decided to take up the double bass. An instrument whose important role is almost wholly misunderstood by most in the audience [of classical music] ...

I was well versed in music and able to read a full symphonic score and hear what I was reading in my head having taught myself this as a child less than thirteen. I played the piano badly at that age, and had a short spell on the Oboe, I played this better, but it is no easy instrument as the head pressures are very high, and it produced ear ache in me. Not a viable instrument with me. But at least I was a good music reader. 

By twenty five I was well aware of a good deal of music, and so knew what I was trying to achieve on the bass. I played in my first amateur concert only nine months after taking up the instrument. 

Within three years I was playing to a good amateur standard in big works like Beethoven’s Eroica. 

My technique was not particularly formed, but after three years I was given to my third teacher, who was [and still is] the first double bass player in the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra. He generally did not have students, finding teaching deeply frustrating! But because I was prepared to work at practicing, I was able to cross many technical brick walls that presented themselves, and after ten years I was not only playing in ad hoc professional situations but teaching the instrument myself! I continued having these very good lessons once a fortnight for ten years and gained an absolutely rock solid technique in that time. I was blessed with a very acute sense of pitch and intonation.

I believe this progress was entirely because of a determination to achieve what I know should be done in musical terms rather than a solely technical approach. 

I doubt I could have done it when younger, even though it is generally said that you must start the bass as no more than a mid-teenager and preferably coming from one of the smaller stringed instruments before that.

So I defied the received wisdom. It is quite sad really that a repetitive strain injury in my left hand meant that I would finish with all my playing after only about fifteen years. But the whole experience gave me a tremendous alternative insight into the music I loved best.

My last playing was amateur, and playing quite short concerts which I could do before the left hand gave out. The leader of our small string orchestra commented that she would miss my contribution, which I was surprised about as usually the double bass is widely despised by the rest of the orchestra! 

She also said that she knew which music I loved the best in our repertoire. I was surprised by that as well, as I made every effort to play music to the best of my ability whether I liked it or not! I asked her how she knew, and the replied:

“Oh that is so easy! You used to lead from the bass if you were in tune with the music!"

I had never realised this myself, as it was completely unconscious. We played without a conductor [where every player must inevitably follow the director] and so the leader was naturally the first violin. Angela said that she knew how to deal with it. Launch the music and let it roll out as I led it off the bass. 

It was quite a revelation to find that this had been the case, and that I had never realised it! 

I have a recording of playing a concert which ended with the Third Brandenburg Concerto, and then the Holberg Suite by Greig. I listened carefully to this and it is clear that leading is not about playing a fraction early, but by firm and flexible rhythmic playing. Not loud but clear. And yes. I am certainly laying down the tempo and dynamic shape of it.

But I was surprised indeed to find that Angela was happy about it!

Funny how things go!

ATB from George

I really enjoy this post. I am an avid reader of the online audio magazines like The Absolute Sound, Stereophile, HiFi +, WhatHiFi, 6moons ect. All of the authors of articles relating to top tier equipment find that a lot of very, very expensive kit is unkind to poor recordings. Imagine spending $250K on a setup that was brilliant to exceptional recordings only! It would be heartbreaking considering too many cd's are not the best quality. I hope I find I can get to a place where all my cd's can be played at the same quality. DCS Vivaldi (UK) is a very expensive system that can apparently play superb quality renderings, but at a cost, a big cost.

Thanks to share so many personal details, this post is one of the most beautiful I read since months, indeed an unexpected result! Best.

George, indeed an interesting narrative. I have been musing on this HiFi/ poor recording dilemma.. and I think I am coming to the conclusion, the more HiFi a system is, that is exceeding technically, the more it may make a poor recording uncomfortable. The more 'musical' a system is, that is it more focuses on the cues that are important in music rather than chasing the absolute technical dragon..the less critical it is of poor recordings.

i believe Naim is in the latter with much of their high end equipment.. To me this is the appeal of much of the Naim sound ... George its perhaps akin to your lead playing role in the Orchestra. 

But I do believe as suggested above that loudspeakers can undermine this and move the overall system into a more analytical presentation... This underlines the umportance of synergy and auditioning loudspeakers (and other components) over an extended period to check for musical as opposed to pure technical hifi presentation. I always audition with poor as well as good recordings. For me there is absolutely no point in having a system that can do one and not the other..

Simon