Is the ND555 now the pinnacle of sound?

Curious, this seems to have morphed into a parallel to the Have you ever played your system really loud thread!

David O'Higgins posted:

But the tiny hairs don’t need to be exposed to damage at all. This is the madness. Music, and loud at that, shouldn’t need to expose our ears to damage in the first place, ergo no need for protection.

at the last concert I attended, I realised the sound quality was quite inferior to the recorded versions of the songs.... and also the performance wasn't as good either.

I've taken the same view as you have above, my ears are too precious to take a risk anymore especially when the recorded performance can be enjoyed (for me) as live shows - with Naim (and other) Hi-fi.

David O'Higgins posted:

But the tiny hairs don’t need to be exposed to damage at all. This is the madness. Music, and loud at that, shouldn’t need to expose our ears to damage in the first place, ergo no need for protection.

Loud music, including, I would say, most concerts and gigs using any amplification, are well above the level at which irreversible hearing damage occurs. We all do it, but don’t kid yourself that there are no consequences. 

Minh Nguyen posted:

I politely disagree, to my ears there are many recordings that are more enjoyable than the experience of listening to a live orchestra in a concert hall. For example, when many instruments are being played at the same time, it is often difficult to hear the voice of a solo violin expressing its almost human character. In addition, electric guitars may also have a very desirable quality that is different to an acoustic guitar.

If you really think so, either you have heard very bad performances by lousy orchestras in unapt acoustics, or you deserve having thrashed tenths of thousands in a stereo system. What you call 'many instruments playing at the same time' with 'a solo violin expressing his almost human character' and you find it it difficult to hear it, we may easily be talking a) of a Concerto for violin and orchestra, in which either the soloist, the composer or the conductor haven't done or aren't doing their job properly, or b) a symphony and you regret not being able to distinguish a single violin among the 30 or more who are playing, in which case either you are engaged with the violinist or have no idea of how one should listen to music.

Anyway: whoever, without exception, declares even an occasional superiority of reproduced music over live one – and I am not talking of those loud, aggressive, vulgar gigs by the myriads of post-punk and post-grudge bands that seem to constitute the 90% of the music culture of this forum's members but, as someone has written earlier, un-amplified one, of any kind – might as well listen on a table radio.

Minh, nothing personal and I respect the show you regularly present to us of having a foot in the whole world's sea of philosophy, but if you enjoy, even once, a recording over a live orchestra, do yourself a favor, stop listening to music.

Max

We went to a couple of jazz gigs in small clubs while on holiday recently. Both venues had great acoustics and in both cases we were sitting at the front. I remember saying to my wife how no hifi, no matter how expensive, can come anywhere near the live experience. The sound is just so much more dynamic and of course, being real, so much more natural and involving. Listening to music on a stereo can be great of course, but it’s nowhere near the real thing. There is, therefore, a long way to go before the ‘pinnacle of sound’ is reached, which of course it never really will be. 

The bottom line has got to be Live music is Live music - real instruments sounding as they should do in terms of timbre.An appreciation of a musicians performance shared with fellow audience members

Hi - Fi  is just a reproduction of the above - doesn't come close for me

We have polar opposite views being expressed here and both are right, but in different contexts.

A good live performance in a venue with good acoustics (and, where appropriate, good electronic equipment properly used - including not too loud) is always going to beat a good HiFi system,

However a live performance can easily be ruined by a poorer performance, venue, electronic equipment or other members of the audience, and in this case a HiFi system can give superior results.

A good HiFi system with the wrong room layout can also sound awful, not matching even the poorest of live performances.

I've experienced all of these circumstances.

Massimo Bertola posted:

.

If you really think so, either you have heard very bad performances by lousy orchestras in unapt acoustics, or you deserve having thrashed tenths of thousands in a stereo system. What you call 'many instruments playing at the same time' with 'a solo violin expressing his almost human character' and you find it it difficult to hear it, we may easily be talking a) of a Concerto for violin and orchestra, in which either the soloist, the composer or the conductor haven't done or aren't doing their job properly, or b) a symphony and you regret not being able to distinguish a single violin among the 30 or more who are playing, in which case either you are engaged with the violinist or have no idea of how one should listen to music.

Anyway: whoever, without exception, declares even an occasional superiority of reproduced music over live one – and I am not talking of those loud, aggressive, vulgar gigs by the myriads of post-punk and post-grudge bands that seem to constitute the 90% of the music culture of this forum's members but, as someone has written earlier, un-amplified one, of any kind – might as well listen on a table radio.

Minh, nothing personal and I respect the show you regularly present to us of having a foot in the whole world's sea of philosophy, but if you enjoy, even once, a recording over a live orchestra, do yourself a favor, stop listening to music.

Max

This caused me to stop and think, leading to a new thread in the music room, on how people listen to music.

Huge posted:

We have polar opposite views being expressed here and both are right, but in different contexts.

A good live performance in a venue with good acoustics (and, where appropriate, good electronic equipment properly used - including not too loud) is always going to beat a good HiFi system,

However a live performance can easily be ruined by a poorer performance, venue, electronic equipment or other members of the audience, and in this case a HiFi system can give superior results.

A good HiFi system with the wrong room layout can also sound awful, not matching even the poorest of live performances.

I've experienced all of these circumstances.

Yep, I'm with you there Huge. All too often a potentially good live performance is spoiled by one or more of the factors you mention, my main irritation being other members of the audience, particularly those who choose to wave their blasted 'phones and tablets around, so they can record something they should be enjoying as it happens. Added to the detractors to the enjoyment of a live performance can be added hassle getting to the venue, and trying to get home afterwards. After the last Elton John concert we went to, I vowed never to attend a large gig ever again, good though Elton's performance was.

I think it's unfair  to say recorded music, played on a good, well-balanced system, doesn't come close to a live performance in terms of sound at least. It can certainly be more enjoyable, given the irritations given above.

Have to agree with Huge and yourself Tony, the mobile phone use and just the hassle of the travel has put me off these last few years. I know some artists have tried to control the mobile phone craze, but unless they were physically removed, it does not seem to make any difference.

"a) of a Concerto for violin and orchestra, in which either the soloist, the composer or the conductor haven't done or aren't doing their job properly, or b) a symphony and you regret not being able to distinguish a single violin among the 30 or more who are playing, in which case either you are engaged with the violinist or have no idea of how one should listen to music."

Or C. You're in the cheap seats.

One issue with discussing live music is that the term encompasses such a range of different types of experience, in terms of musical styles, purely acoustic, from a very small to a very large scale, unamplified other than electric instruments but those outputting at levels commensurate with acoustic instruments, amplified music but only to a level necessary to balance with loud percussion instruments and amplified music where that is done to create particular desired sound levels. To the latter can be added variances in quality of PA system, and to all variances in the effect of venue acoustics where one is positioned.

it would appear that some of the contributions here are focussed at quite different points in this spectrum of live music and that may be significant in terms of people’s considerations of whether live or recorded sounds better. Add to that the fact that recordings range from simple     miking of a live performance to music where the recording process is part of the creation process, and things get more challenging - and then everyone’s idea of what sounds good is different, whether that be the sound balance across the frequency spectrum, or the degree of colouration or masking they may like, etc.

In my experience a good live performance is hard to beat, whether that be a heavy rock band where the power of the sound is a fundamental part of the experience, or a prog rock performance where the sound balance and clarity are crucial, or a singer-songwriter playing with minimal accompaniment but singing out their soul, or a small chamber ensemble playing exquisitely, or a tragic opera where it is the emotion carried through music, human voice and theatre - though of these the latter is the most powerful.

For each these, recordings played through hifi can only be a replica, but one that is a delight to be able to experience as often as I wish, rather than waiting months or years to be able to see live, or in many cases never again because the band is no more. And that is what is so special about good hifi - it is possible to create a good illusion whenever you wish, which to me is an absolutely amazing and fantastic thing. Yes, it is only an illusion, and a live performance can beat it - but live performances can also be bad, with amplified music certainly having considerable scope to sound wrong and thus the greatest potential for disappointment, but even unamplified music can fail to sound good, for a variety of reasons.

The pinnacle of sound is silence.

(... waiting for Huge to call this an Oxymoron)

OK...

Just for you...

It's an oxymoron.   

(But then that does depend on what you mean by 'pinnacle', and could also be a reference to a song by Simon & Garfunkel.)

hungryhalibut posted:

There is, therefore, a long way to go before the ‘pinnacle of sound’ is reached, which of course it never really will be. 

And I dare adding, there is no reason in the world why it should ever be.

Massimo Bertola posted:

Minh Nguyen posted:

I politely disagree, to my ears there are many recordings that are more enjoyable than the experience of listening to a live orchestra in a concert hall. For example, when many instruments are being played at the same time, it is often difficult to hear the voice of a solo violin expressing its almost human character. In addition, electric guitars may also have a very desirable quality that is different to an acoustic guitar.

If you really think so, either you have heard very bad performances by lousy orchestras in unapt acoustics, or you deserve having thrashed tenths of thousands in a stereo system. What you call 'many instruments playing at the same time' with 'a solo violin expressing his almost human character' and you find it it difficult to hear it, we may easily be talking a) of a Concerto for violin and orchestra, in which either the soloist, the composer or the conductor haven't done or aren't doing their job properly, or b) a symphony and you regret not being able to distinguish a single violin among the 30 or more who are playing, in which case either you are engaged with the violinist or have no idea of how one should listen to music.

Anyway: whoever, without exception, declares even an occasional superiority of reproduced music over live one – and I am not talking of those loud, aggressive, vulgar gigs by the myriads of post-punk and post-grudge bands that seem to constitute the 90% of the music culture of this forum's members but, as someone has written earlier, un-amplified one, of any kind – might as well listen on a table radio.

Minh, nothing personal and I respect the show you regularly present to us of having a foot in the whole world's sea of philosophy, but if you enjoy, even once, a recording over a live orchestra, do yourself a favor, stop listening to music.

Max

I have experienced performances at the Royal Albert Hall and the Royal Festival Hall. The grandfather of a close friend designed the latter and I was informed that much thought was given to the acoustics. Classical music represents a tiny shard of my music collection and the example I presented was to demonstrate that the enjoyment of music is very much a personal endeavour. This is why it is understandable that most people have different systems and are able to appreciate different recordings of the same music. 

The mere act of recording introduces artificiality and a recording will never sound identical to a live acoustic performance but it can endeavour to replicate it as accurately as possible. Life on earth is not about the pursuit of perfection. It is more about understanding that change is inevitable. As soon as life begins, there is change. Music as a form of expression does not necessarily need a basis for comparison. When a person holds onto a preconceived notion (live performance) it may limit their ability to appreciate difference. An expectation often leads to disappointment. To understand human nature is to observe humanity. An understanding of the world comes from observing nature and our place in the universe. A plant does not grow identical leaves so it is not for us to strive to be the same, after all, we are all unique.

Please teach me how to listen and if you ever visit London, I would like to extend you an open invitation to visit my humble abode. 

Minh

Wow Minh, I had to read that second paragraph three times to appreciate the nuances and the scope, each time reading it from a different perspective and/or point of consideration.

Huge posted:

OK...

Just for you...

It's an oxymoron.   

(But then that does depend on what you mean by 'pinnacle', and could also be a reference to a song by Simon & Garfunkel.)

Pinnacle = the highest point.

In terms of frequency, since we’re talking about hifi it would seem reasonable to consider sound to be that heard by humans, in which case according to Wikipadia under ideal conditions the upper limit is about 28kHz, so perhaps the  ND555 goes up that high. As that is not possible with 44.1KHz sample rate material, and as possibly the majority of owners are likely to be past the prime of their hearing,  the effective outcome of a 28KHz tone - or anything approaching that -, on its own in the music being recorded, would be silence.

in terms of sound level, in a source the pinnacle would be an output signal higher than any other. That could mean a higher than normal sound level if the volume control is not turned down - or potentially overload of amp or speakers, which could also lead to silence.

I don,t think Naim would see the ND555 as the pinnacle of sound that they can achieve. Unlike Statement the design team would have the constraints of it being a 500 series component, a certain budget to be adhered to.

If silence rains, it can damage your HiFi - water and electricity don't mix.

(Or, more precisely, they potential problem is that they do mix, and for some purposes they mix rather too well!)

Innocent Bystander posted:

Huge posted:

 

(But then that does depend on what you mean by 'pinnacle', and could also be a reference to a song by Simon & Garfunkel.)

 Pinnacle = the highest point.

<snip>

in terms of sound level, in a source the pinnacle would be an output signal higher than any other. That could mean a higher than normal sound level if the volume control is not turned down - or potentially overload of amp or speakers, which could also lead to silence.

Could we then say that this is 'the pinnacle of sound'?:

Huge posted:

If silence rains, it can damage your HiFi - water and electricity don't mix.

(Or, more precisely, they potential problem is that they do mix, and for some purposes they mix rather too well!)

Is that discounting the ND555 as (sic) raining supreme?

Ardbeg10y posted:

 

 

Could we then say that this is 'the pinnacle of sound'?:

Is there a speaker on top?

No, the adhaan is sung, rather than spoken.