10 more Hifi Myths

[Analogous]

Eelco Grimm takes aim at ten topics, not necessarily to debunk their status as myths but to reveal the complexity beneath their surfaces.

1. Reality is the reference
2. A loudspeaker should look like a loudspeaker
3. A driver is ‘firing’ somewhere
4. A toe-in setup of loudspeakers gives a blurred stereo image
5. Room EQ can improve a great system
6. Vinyl sounds better than digital
7. Ripped CDs sound better than lossless streaming
8. High sample rates are necessary for imaging
9. The DSD format has magical benefits
10. Carefully balancing separate components from various specialist manufacturers offers the greatest chance of high sound quality.

Podcast: 10 hi-fi ‘myths’ busted by Eelco Grimm | Darko.Audio

For some, blanket statements are security blankets.

darko.audio

 

[square_wave]

Brilliant conversation! Thanks for sharing.

 

[Analogous]

Hopefully more FM will check this out
Here is a shortcut direct to the conversation

https://soundcloud.com/johnhdarko%2F10-hi-fi-myths-busted-by-eelco-grimm

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

So he says you can’t call a stereo system transparent because the sound it creates is an illusion, and not the same as the original sound. That’s like saying we can’t call a mirror reflective because the image on its surface is not the original object. I stopped listening.

 

[Analogous]

I stopped listening

Too bad. There are some interesting issues he talks about, even if makes some of us uncomfortable with questions about our long and deeply held beliefs.
I could not find the part where he supposedly said “you can’t call a stereo system transparent” . He says you can not do a transparency test on loudspeaker, which is entirely different. (2.5 mins to 5 mins into the podcast)

 

[arj]

What he is saying is the what you hear on a Hifi presentation is designed by Sound engineers for the recording and is not really the actual live recording. Hence the sound is not really the live sound

This is actually true and thats why recordings by some sound engineers are so well regarded as they are artists..and what makes some others really bad and both may not represent the actual performance

 

[Analogous]

Nicely put.
I till now believed it was possible (in theory at least) to reproduce the “live experience “!on a good stereo set up. But that theory is bunkum.
His insights into room acoustics and speaker placements are also very interesting

 

[sachinchavan 15865]

if makes some of us uncomfortable with questions about our long and deeply held beliefs.

I doubt it made me uncomfortable. I just found it illogical. Also the excessive blabbering at the start dulled my attention. So I might have missed the nuance you mention.

Sorry if it made you the OP feel offended. Wasn’t my intention. I love most of the links you share.

What he is saying is the what you hear on a Hifi presentation is designed by Sound engineers for the recording and is not really the actual live recording. Hence the sound is not really the live sound

That’s not saying much, is it? Again like saying what a photographer captures in a camera is not what the model actually looks like. Yep, it’s not. He is capturing and reproducing in 2D what is 3D, just like the sound engineer. We all know it.

But still some systems generate a better sense of immediacy than others. With better separation, depth, micro-dynamics etc.

 

[arj]

That’s not saying much, is it? Again like saying what a photographer captures in a camera is not what the model actually looks like. Yep, it’s not. He is capturing and reproducing in 2D what is 3D, just like the sound engineer. We all know it.

Thats true, its perhaps more of a point relating to those who claim systems are supposed to sound live-especially in western classical or Jazz.

Nicely put.
I till now believed it was possible (in theory at least) to reproduce the “live experience “!on a good stereo set up. But that theory is bunkum.
His insights into room acoustics and speaker placements are also very interesting

Some Live recordings or Unplugged recordings do that where the engineers might just boost or attenuate some instruments for a good presentation and not mess around wit anything else.
Since even in Live shows what you hear is different based in how close you are to the stage. since the recording is done close to the Mic there is a need to master it different ly

 

[Analogous]

I was thinking about his description of the singer or an instrument in a live event, each being a single source of sounds being captured by microphones and recorded, and the reproduction in stereo being done through two speakers (sources) trying to project these single source images in the sound stage with precision. That’s very challenging…
I am giving up on using live performances as a benchmark to judge my home set up.
If it sounds good in my home set up with a decent sound stage and distinct positioning I am happy never again to wonder if the live experience was better. Different for sure, but enjoyable nonetheless.

I was thinking about his description of the singer or an instrument in a live event being a single source and the reproduction in stereo being done through two speaker (sources) trying to capture the single source image in the centre

 

[mahaaprasaad]

I was thinking about his description of the singer or an instrument in a live event being a single source and the reproduction in stereo being done through two speaker (sources) trying to capture the single source image in the centre

While we are talking about live experience, in today's scenario, is not the live performance is also captured through microphones, passed on through many electronics like mixers, effect generators etc and finally delivered through array of speakers sorrounding in the hall, which is also treated for better acoustics? So like Studio recordings also. The true sound of the vocal or instrument can be experienced only when it is performed in a natural environment without any electronics, which rarely happens in closed groups.