On the Differing Sound Balance Between Audio Components — Twitter Log 2

Cleopatra’s Daydream @cleopatrasdream · 11 September
That’s exactly right. But people who used to perform, or who are musicians, tend from the outset to approach things through their own sense of sound. Because they’re not trapped by the phantom concept of “Hi-Fi” — that thing without any tangible form — they’re bold. That said, it’s not uncommon to find people who don’t take in the whole picture but simply listen to the parts they want to hear. There’s a saying that people only see what they want to see, only hear what they want to hear — and getting the whole thing into balance requires both a disciplined way of listening and the “skill” of adjustment. When it comes to that skill, there is an extraordinary amount of complete nonsense floating around.

Cleopatra’s Daydream @cleopatrasdream · 11 September
So you’ve gone the multiple-system route. I use both large and small systems, but they produce the same sound, so for me it’s one system. With headphones and earphones, too, the balance of sound and music has ended up much the same. When my assessment of something shifts dramatically, I take it as a sign that something is different. When the difference is large, it often means one of them is producing a sound that is physically unpleasant. There is the fact that the sound of an upright bass heard through a simple Walkman with earphones plugged in — even that level of reproduction is something most loudspeakers cannot manage.

On the subject of jazz and classical — I believe the balance needed to reproduce 1950s and ’60s jazz, and the balance needed to reproduce Fournier, Starker, or the still older Casals, share exactly the same key points. If I were to name one thing to be slightly more careful about with classical, it would be this: with the digital era came improved signal-to-noise ratios, which made it possible to place microphones further back and capture a great deal more of the surrounding space. In that respect, you may find it difficult to have both things at once unless you have modern, high-performance equipment.

When the way music sounds changes extremely between systems, in most cases what happens to me is that some electrical irregularity — an untuned section, or poor quality or muddiness or distortion at the component and materials level — catches my ear, and I find I can no longer listen to the music. I apologise in advance for saying this, but I am an engineer, and I have had experiences that ordinary people cannot, which means I can identify in an instant the electrical characteristics that arise at the component level, the materials level, and the design level. It is rather like knowing all the answers in a spot-the-difference puzzle. Not knowing might actually make it easier to lose yourself in the music. It is true that, on a system tuned for delicacy, I probably wouldn’t want to listen to rock or R&B. In that sense, I suppose the genres I listen to do share a lot of common ground.

Cleopatra’s Daydream @cleopatrasdream · 12 September
That the impression a performance makes can sound different between System A and System B — this is something I experience often, and I have no objection to the point. When things sound extremely different between A and B, I ask myself why, wonder where the difference lies, and pursue the cause. In terms of a middle ground — let’s think about the audio balance coming out of a broadcast station. The energy balance between stations is virtually non-existent. The voices of familiar talent and announcers don’t change to any startling degree, and they broadcast everything from old recordings to new releases. Some years ago I had occasion to go in and out of broadcast stations. What I observed was that the audio staff’s method of checking was, first and foremost, the human voice. They checked voices with absolute thoroughness.

On the differences due to recording era — I think there would be no argument that modern recording and playback alike are wider in range and lower in distortion. I also take the view that a narrow range is simply contained within a wide one. Here is my conclusion regarding whether equipment is suited to a given genre. On a sloppy system, the problem shows up in extreme form. The more you refine things, the greater the compatibility across genres becomes. Yet when it comes to the ultimate optimal solution, there will always, without question, be a degree of suitability and unsuitability.

In terms of sound, I would ultimately like the Hi-Fi for a jazz small combo or solo instrument and the Hi-Fi for a hundred-piece orchestra to be entirely different things. But having to swap equipment for every piece of music is a nuisance. It interrupts the mood of listening. What a truly accomplished and well-realised Hi-Fi system does, I think, is make you forget all those concerns about sound quality.

Cleopatra’s Daydream @cleopatrasdream · 12 September
That really is the right path, isn’t it. I think music is absorbed most deeply when you listen at the moment your heart is genuinely wanting to hear it. A certain veteran jazz critic once said he listened through a small, single-cone, full-range driver — because mid-range high-end equipment leaves you at the mercy of the Hi-Fi’s sound, and you end up losing confidence in your assessment of the music. In a way, I thought that was a remark that hit the mark. I myself, in order to verify my own ideas and hypotheses, have carried out work — including building from scratch and modifying — that the ordinary Hi-Fi enthusiast simply cannot attempt. Pastel Piano, on the other hand, grew up with music and turned to Hi-Fi because music demanded it — you strike me as the very model of what a genuine, straightforward Hi-Fi enthusiast ought to be.