Unexpected Results

Posted by: Bodger on 06 November 2015

This year I have been able to complete my system and reach the CDS3/552/500 system (plus a vinyl source chain) which was an informal goal when I began 10 years ago. I was not sure I would take it that far but circumstance and that upgrade itch made sure we are where we are. I’d like to try to describe the mixed feelings I get from reaching this point. Don’t get me wrong, I’m very happy to be here but I thought I would discuss some softer issues that came with the purchases and which were not entirely expected.

It surely takes time to climb the ladder to this point. So it should given the cost involved, the internal decision making process and the foreplay of research and reading about the next upgrade. That or you are fortunate enough to be able to jump straight in where the top of the tree used to be before the Statement. The first odd side effect was that, the hunt is over and the itch has been scratched. There is nothing else to occupy that obsessive collector inside your head; no more next step, no more anticipation of purchase. It’s almost like finishing a large project at work. You kind of miss it when it is over. This, despite the hassles along the way.

Again, unless you are minted quickly in life, the chances are you are no spring chick when you get to 500-land. For me, this means a couple of things. Firstly, that your hearing ain’t what it was – am I really hearing this right? A nagging doubt at the back of your mind. Second, I certainly felt closer and more emotionally involved with music when I was a student for example. Your girlfriend leaves you and every song on the radio is written about your situation. I just don’t have the same connection with the music as I had and consequently fewer “hairs on the back of the neck” moments to savour. You can enjoy the irony of playing the Clash on a 60k system, but music should do more than raise an eye brow.

The kit is tremendous, but very sensitive. Lousy recordings sound, well, lousy. Although I have had gaps in buying music (and kit) over the years, kids, other stuff took time, most of us agree that modern mastering habits are more tailored to the iPod market than the bigger kit. It can be tougher to find the right music of the right quality. I am now guilty of wading through the forum checking out what folks consider to be the best recordings for the year, despite not knowing the artist in most cases. Am I now guilty of buying music for my system rather than me? Or worse still, just listening to the system not the music.

These I consider to be the side effects of arriving in 500-land. Most members here will know the sonic benefits and enjoyment which I have not tried to describe. Perhaps this is just then a warning. Everything has its price. To end on a brighter note, I do spend more time listening and more time buying music than I have for years. Not half bad then, but you have been warned.

Dave

Posted on: 08 November 2015 by joerand

Interesting narratives, indeed. Semantics certainly play a role. For some "analytical" is a positive as it is heard as closer to the artist's intended message while "musical" is a coloration. For others, making a wide variety of recordings more "musical" is the positive. Seems some want simply to sit back and tap their foot while others have a need to delve deeply into the recording. Neither is right or wrong for their own purpose. Fortunately there is a wide variety of gear available to suit either end and all in between.

Posted on: 08 November 2015 by Simon-in-Suffolk

Joerand, indeed and some of us want the balance between the two.. IE be able to appreciate the mastering as close as to how the mastering engineer and artist/R&R representative intended and agreed to in the studio... perhaps using speaker drivers that are used in pro setups such as from ATC and PMC helps here..

Simon

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by CharlieP

I am not clear on what is meant by "analytical" vs "musical.."

In my experience subtle changes in loudspeaker frequency response can have disproportionate effects on whether a system is "forgiving" or "unforgiving" of "poorer" or "harsher" recordings. This quality seems quite independent of improvements to electronics like discrete regulated power supplies (for example). Such improvements provide more musical insight by keeping voices and instruments more independent (not affecting one another) against a quieter noise background (less modulation distortion noise). These improvements reveal more musical detail by allowing us to hear more microdynamics and a longer note decay into the recorded space. This is very different from the kind of "detail" one gets from a small treble emphasis in the loudspeaker - which makes the speaker "unforgiving."

I hope I am making sense.

I also wish I understood what are the qualities of a "harsh" recording, as compared to a "clean" one. Is this also a matter of frequency response? I don't think it is that simple.

Charlie

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by sharik

Originally Posted by Innocent Bystander:

Turandot, my conversion: a masterpiece.

sure masterpiece along with other Puccini operas like Madama Butterfly and Tosca that draw tears and provide a great deal of inspiration.

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Simon-in-Suffolk

Charlie, it's a hard one to answer as I personally feel I have a system that gives the best of both world.. Musical insight and accuracy.. IE I can hear and smile about production / playing mistakes or musical techniques if I wish to notice them.. In other words I have a system that lets me chose how I want to listen for a given mood and piece of music..

But in the past I have had possibly what could be called analytical systems that have focussed too much on detail in the mids and to my ears had glare. Yes on simple acoustic recordings it worked really well etching out the details and spatial sounds, but with many compressed modern recordings it became tiring..

I have had the other extreme, I borrowed an integrated that bounced along, and was quite inoffensive of what was given to it.. but try and listen into anything.. and it was kind of masked or veiled.. Perhaps this is the musical system..

So for me my path ended or at leat paused, when I had a system that found an effective balance between the two allowing me to choose how I listen when I want to and even change during a track.. and for me that point was reached with a 252DR/250.2 ATC based system.

Simon

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Harry

Example of analytical: Wow! Just listen to the bass response these speakers give in this room. They must go down to 40Hz, at least.

Example of musical: Wow! Did you hear how the drummed slid behind the bass and is now following whilst counterpointing?

Some of us can do both and more at once. Most times it tends to be one aspect or another. It depends on a lot of things not least the listener. I have found that there has been a tendency to listen more to how music is arranged and played than to how the music is reproduced as I have improved my system. Each to our own.

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by CharlieP

Originally Posted by Harry:

Example of analytical: Wow! Just listen to the bass response these speakers give in this room. They must go down to 40Hz, at least.

Example of musical: Wow! Did you hear how the drummed slid behind the bass and is now following whilst counterpointing?

Harry,

I could agree with your definitions. You are using them to describe the listener, or his/her "listening mood." I also agree that as system "improves" one tends to be drawn into the music and forgets about the equipment. Thus are we defining "improvement."

Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought joerand and Simon were using the terms "analytical" and "musical" to describe the equipment or its rendition of the recorded music.

Charlie

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Simon-in-Suffolk

Charlie you are right - that is indeed how I at least was using the terms -

Simon

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Harry

I'm sure you are right Charlie. We all come from different angles. And we all have different ears. And we all listen differently, to different aspects of a piece. When being "analytical" it will be for different aspects of the presentation. The better the system (in my ears), which does not necessarily translate to more expensive, the less I am drawn to analyse and the more I tend to just enjoy the skill and care that went into the playing.

The DAC/XPS2 did tend to have me listening to things like clarity, treble smoothness and separation and could really show up a dodgy recording. In contrast the NDS and to a lesser extent the DAC/555PS (long gone) will present something rough as just that, but it gets in the way of the music less. It doesn't seem to matter so much. The exception to my ears being brick walled recordings where the NDS will realistically portray the sound crunching into the limiter but it will sound pretty good on the Mu-So and just fine in the car.

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Innocent Bystander

Originally Posted by Harry:

Example of analytical: Wow! Just listen to the bass response these speakers give in this room. They must go down to 40Hz, at least.

Example of musical: Wow! Did you hear how the drummed slid behind the bass and is now following whilst counterpointing?

Hmm, semantics are interesting - and crucial if trying to understand what a reviewer means! In this case I beg to differ on interpretation:-

The first description, stated as above, I would take to be equipment and sound focused, nothing to do with music per se, and so not what I would consider analytical either as a description of the system or the listener's assessment of the ability of the speakers to reproduce music. However, if the person says "wow I can really feel the bass vibrate my trouser legs, just like at the gig last week", or "I never realised that bit was underscored by a bass pedal note -wow now it makes my spine tingle", or "What's that instrument going so deep - it sounds a bit like a bassoon, but it's lower than the double bass?" that to me would be part of an assessment of musicality.

And the second description to me Is analytical, analysing how the music is assembled - but that is the listener, not the system being analytical. To facilitate that, the system must not mask anything, whether or not it is accurate in its tonal balance or other factors - and if the system is being used to analyse recordings, it may be that a focus perhaps on the part of the music with most information, for example a system with an enhanced midrange, may assist, as the note fundamentals and highest harmonics might be distractions o the ear.

An 'analytical system' on the other hand to me means one that hides nothing, with accuracy and faithfulness to whatever is presented in the recording - though it might not necessarily cover the full frequency range. Yes garbage in, garbage out - though that doesn't make the garbage sound any worse than it is, if muddled or highly compressed it will sound muddled or highly compressed on any system. At the other end of the scale a system that doesn't have the (analytical) qualities of accuracy and faithfulness to the recording may make the well-recorded piece sound as muddled and compressed as the poor one.

So, different individual views of what constitutes analytical and musical. However, I would suggest there is another aspect to musicality, which embodies parts of all the above, namely realism. This is where the listener seeks a sound just like being at a concert/gig - or at least as close an approximation as possible, inevitable constrained by acoustic limitations of a living room (and with an ability to choose a preferred loudness level). This requires as far as can be achieved the reproduction of the full frequency range and capability of reproducing the full dynamic range as heard (and felt) in the auditorium, with temporal accuracy, without added emphasis or distortions.

I describe my own intent for HiFi to be the pursuit of realism.

Unlike Harry, as I have improved my system I have not tended to listen more to how music is arranged and played - but neither have I listened more to how the music is reproduced, rather I have just immersed myself in the music: yes, sometimes hearing things I hadn't heard -or noticed - before, but not listening out for that, it merely adding a greater depth. Clearly indeed, each to his or her own, just as there is no accounting for musical taste!

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Zeny

If it entertains me and makes me keep wanting to listen to music than doing other fun activities, it is a good system. If it bores me and I don't feel the urge to turn it on, then it's not a good system.

Pretty simple...

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Innocent Bystander

Originally Posted by Zeny:

Pretty simple...

Out of curiosity, did your system before the now infamous NAP300DR upgrade not entertain you and make you keep wanting to listen to music tather than other fun activities?

if it did, why the upgrade? And if it didn't, does It now with the 300DR, and what is it that makes the difference?

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Harry

Originally Posted by Innocent Bystander:

I would suggest there is another aspect to musicality, which embodies parts of all the above, namely realism. This is where the listener seeks a sound just like being at a concert/gig - or at least as close an approximation as possible, inevitable constrained by acoustic limitations of a living room (and with an ability to choose a preferred loudness level). This requires as far as can be achieved the reproduction of the full frequency range and capability of reproducing the full dynamic range as heard (and felt) in the auditorium, with temporal accuracy, without added emphasis or distortions.

Yes. That's another one. Sought but seldom achieved unless you've been really fortunate/selective in your music collecting.

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Jude2012

I'm a little pimp with my hair gassed back
Pair a khaki pants with my shoe shined black

Got a little lady . . . walk the street
Tellin' all the boys that she cain't be beat

Twenny dollah bill (I can set you straight)
Meet me onna corner boy 'n don't be late

Man in a suit with a bow-tie neck
Wanna

Standin' onna porch of the Lido Hotel
Floozies in the lobby love the way I sell:
HOT MEAT
HOT RATS
HOT CATS
HOT RITZ
HOT ROOTS

HOT SOOTS

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Innocent Bystander

Originally Posted by Jude2012:

HOT SOOTS

My favourite Zappa track, from the only album of his I have - I never really got into others I've sampled over the years.

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Zeny

Innocent,

My naim amp before the 252/300 was a SN/HCDR (later SN2). Initially it sounded pretty good, but over time probably my ears 'upgraded' and felt the amp lacked something. I tried tubes, pretty happy for a while, then tube preamp and ss amp, very happy, but the sweet and smooth presentation ultimately bored me (my wife loved it, she plays it every night). Now came back to naim with the 252/300, so far so good. All my fast music (eg hollaback girl) now makes sense and is not only most listenable but my foot couldn't stop tapping! I hope my ears would stop upgrading for the sake of my financial sanity and bank account.

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Jude2012

Originally Posted by Innocent Bystander:

Originally Posted by Jude2012:

HOT SOOTS

My favourite Zappa track, from the only album of his I have - I never really got into others I've sampled over the years.

Exactly for me too. Looking out for other Zappa material - Strictly Commercial seems a good album. Anyway, must not detract from this 'amazing' thread. Just couldn't help myself.

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Innocent Bystander

Very curious, a post by Badlands of which I received a copy by email half an hour ago isn't visible in this forum. Badlands did you delete it yourself? (I thought it was good!)

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by analogmusic

yes what a nice post by badlands, why was it deleted?

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by badlands

Sorry guys, but yes I deleted it. After careful consideration I felt it would have been seen in a negative way by some of the members here and also by Naim, and I honestly didn't mean it to sound that way.

That's the great thing about free will, the truth is people really shouldn't judge what others do, people can do what they want, no matter how trivial and insignificant it may seem to others.

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by analogmusic

badlands, I have heard a UQ1 into small speakers, and then a HDX/552/500 into the same small speakers, and honestly the UQ deserved the Naim badge as much as the 552/500 did.

The Nait XS which I owned for a while is one hell of an amplifier, really fun and Naim like, so I don't think anything has changed much about that aspect of Naim,

There is a Naim for all budgets, and it is really up to the individual how much they want to spend.

By the way I do apologize for my post on the other thread, I should have known all the facts before making my own comments.

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by badlands

No problem at all analogmusic, no apology is necessary, but I do appreciate it, it was an unfortunate incident that happened but all is forgotten as far as I am concerned.

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by nigelb

Originally Posted by badlands:

That's the great thing about free will, the truth is people really shouldn't judge what others do, people can do what they want, no matter how trivial and insignificant it may seem to others.

Badlands, I read your post before you took it down and while rather forthright and challenging, posts like this do make you stop and think about the more eccentric and extravagant things you have done (and indeed might be planning) in the pursuit of music reproduction in the home.

I do also understand that you did not wish to cause any offence and did not want to appear judgemental. But I found your post quite refreshing.

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Innocent Bystander

Amazingly, this thread has now morphed into a discussion of an absent post!

Posted on: 09 November 2015 by Harry

It was a good post. Thoughtful and thought provoking. But by the time I saw the email, digested it and followed the link it was gone. Shame.