Real or Surreal?



What is (are) the distinguishing feature(s) of a high-end audio system? To some it the retrieval of each and every musical detail. To others, it is flat frequency response. To still others, it is full-range capability. To some, it is bass which rocks the foundation. Then there are those who feel that the relevant criterion is the ability to play loudly with minimal distortion. Last but not least, there is a school of thought - to which I adhere - which believes that the raison d’etre of high end audio is something less tangible, namely the ability to communicate the emotional content of the music  - a property we might call musical realism. (Musical realism doesn’t seem to correlate with any easily measurable parameter.)

I am indebted to Jonathan Halpern of Tone Imports, discussions with whom provided the impetus for this article.

A few years ago, in an article published prior to my joining Stereo Times, I addressed the issue of “truth versus beauty” in high-end audio. (stereophile) I noted there that designers often intentionally deviate from apparent accuracy to the source in the hope of obtaining a more pleasant sound, and I speculated that this might be to compensate for (as one example) the harshness of digitally recorded music, or to provide better balance in a speaker that is not full range (i.e., the so-called “rule of 400,000”). A variant of this phenomenon is what I refer to as “hyper-realism,” which is characterized by being “over the top” and “realer-than-real.” Hyper-realism has become so prevalent in high-end audio as to become something of the norm.

In this article I will discuss some of the ways in which hyper-realism manifests itself, and will attempt to shed some light on why it has become so pervasive.
To understand what I mean by hyper-realism, video analogies might be helpful. A few years back go I entered the world of high definition with the acquisition of a 1080p projector and hi-def cable box. As is undoubtedly common amongst first-time hi-def viewers, I spent the first few weeks skipping from channel to channel, ooh’ing and aah’ing at the incredible resolution and color palette. By chance I stumbled upon CSI Miami, and was immediately riveted (by the image; certainly not by the acting or story line!). The colors seemingly jumped off the screen at me in a way I had never before witnessed; blues were bluer than I knew possible, as were the reds and the greens. (Like being on an LSD trip, as a friend later described it.) I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen, despite the clear realization that the image was quite unnatural.2

2 - In his review of the Oppo DV-970HD Universal player (Stereophile, May 2007), Wes Phillips stated “...I was reminded of the difference between video and film. Video always looks realer, whereas film always looks better.” Of course, Wes was comparing two varieties of recorded media, not a recorded medium to reality, but it does remind us that in video, as in audio, beauty can sometimes be preferable to truth.

I initially though my projector was mis-calibrated but soon learned that the show is intentionally shot in that manner. But in fact, oftentimes video displays are the culprits. It is well known that the factory settings for brightness and contrast on televisions are way too hot. Conventional wisdom (urban legend?) says that this is a marketing ploy, designed so the sets catch the eye of consumers even in brightly lit stores. In and of itself this is no big deal; unfortunately however, many consumers are unaware of the out-of-whack settings, and fail to properly adjust the displays once they get the set home. Many of us with an interest in video have had the experience of going to the home of a friend or colleague and, upon noting the misadjusted picture, offer to properly adjust it for them, only to have them complain that the picture now looks drab and lifeless. (One could similarly draw an analogy to those who heavily salt their food.) The good news is that with time, viewers often become accustomed to the proper video adjustments (ditto for food not drowning in salt); the bad news is that it doesn’t happen overnight and moreover, one has to have the realization that the contrast/brightness/salt are masking the true “flavor” of the medium. That is, one has to be willing to deviate from their comfort zone to discover what one was missing.

Returning to audio, hyper-realism comes in many guises. Let’s begin at the beginning: the recording studio. Some of the best, most realistic-sounding recordings were made in the 1950s. While there are undoubtedly numerous differences between those and modern recordings, one especially important factor contributing to the earlier recordings’ magic is the use of minimal-mic'ing techniques. Nowadays, many (and probably most) recordings are made with multiple microphones, often more than one per instrument, positioned in very close proximity. Because of this proximity the mics' “hear” the instrument very differently from the way we would. In the case of string instruments (as an example), this arrangement highlights the strings and minimizes the contribution of the instrument body, resulting in a sound that is exaggerated in some sonic attributes, and lacking in others. Using multiple mics in this way makes the situation ever worse, as the sound of the instrument is effectively broken up into sections, resulting in a disjointed sound.

Close-mic'ing also exaggerates the soundstage, a topic I have discussed elsewhere (www.dagogo.com). First, close mic'ing drastically distorts image size; we have all experienced pianos that seemingly extend across the room, and I can’t begin to count the number of times I walked into a room at an audio show and was greeted with a ten foot Diana Krall. Closely mic'd recordings alter the soundstage in other ways as well. For example, they artificially enhance the space between the instruments, and - in conjunction with modern speakers - present etched borders that, in my experience, never exist in live music.3 While it is annoying that such artifacts exist on the recordings, the far greater problem is that too many audiophiles have come to regard them as normal and worse still, crave them. Thankfully, there is a resurgence of minimal mic'd recordings, such as those from Unipheye Music (unipheyemusic; see stereotimes) and Mapleshade Records (mapleshaderecords).

3 - Until their recent closure, I regularly attended jazz and chamber music performances at the Bosendorfer NYC showroom. The performance area is approximately 20 feet wide, and the performers often stood close to one another. It occurred to me that if the soundstage were accurately reproduced on a recording and playback system, many audiophiles would complain that it was too small.

Another example of hyper-realism relates to resolution. The Stereophile glossary (www.stereophile.com) defines resolution (also called definition) as

“That quality of sound reproduction which enables the listener to distinguish between, and follow the melodic lines of, the individual voices or instruments comprising a large performing group.”

While audiophiles agree on very few things, there seems to be a nearly unanimous consensus that higher resolution is a desirable property of audio systems. But far too common are systems that merely give the impression of resolution. Such systems are often spoken of as being ruthlessly revealing but, as my friend Jules Coleman has pointed, this is in fact a misnomer in that they are actually the antithesis of high resolution. False resolution typically results from a system that emphasizes certain frequencies or frequency ranges, or the notes’ leading edges (more often than not a function of the amplification). While these are most assuredly ear catching, they are of course ersatz and once recognized as such, unrewarding.

Last but not least is bass, without which no discussion of hyper-realism would be complete. Good bass can be a wonderful thing, and we all know that achieving it can be especially difficult because of room interactions. That however, is separate and distinct from bass hyper-realism, which comes in two flavors: quantitative and qualitative. On the quantitative side we are confronted with those individuals who want bass that flaps their pants, pounds them in the chest, shakes the house and rattle the rafters. The popularity of action/adventure movies, filled with explosions of every shape and form, might have something to do with it, but that is just a hunch. I once asked a friend - a well-respected home theater enthusiast - why fans spend so much time and energy on bass. His reply? “Because they can.”

On the qualitative side, things are equally odd. Many audiophiles want bass that is “tight” to the nth degree, with zero overhang. In over three decades of attending live performances, I have never heard bass with those properties. By analogy with the situation with soundstage I mentioned above, I firmly believe that if the bass from a live venue - be it jazz club, concert hall or stadium - were accurately reproduced, many audiophiles would be dissatisfied with it. This of course raises the question, “what exactly is it audiophiles want?,” a topic beyond the scope of this article. I can’t help but feel that far too many audiophiles have lost sight of the fact that the double bass (and electric bass) is a musical instrument, not a device for demolition or the generation of sound-effects.

Having outlined some of the ways in which hyper-realism manifest, it’s time to turn to the $64,000 question, namely, why is it so common in high-end audio? There are undoubtedly numerous causes, and I don’t claim to know them all. I will however address a few that I feel are especially important. The first factor relates to what I refer to as the “supersize me” mentality. The most obvious manifestation of this phenomenon of course pertains to the obsession with food, evidenced by the quantities of food served at eateries (especially fast food restaurants and movie theatres), and the near-epidemic proportions of obesity (and concomitant heart disease). Food is no longer just for sustenance, nor just a treat for the taste buds; rather, it has become an addiction for those for whom satiety is nearly unobtainable. The desire for “more, more, more” extends beyond food to many aspects of life, including recreation and entertainment. Whereas folks once turned to books and radio - activities which required imagination, and thus active participation - far too many people now want - and sadly, need - constant bombardment of the senses, be it from a telephone, or gimmick-laden surround sound movies.

Another reason for hyper-realism is audio-related, specifically having to do with dynamics. While I never doubted the importance of dynamics, its primary importance became clear to me in, of all places, the New York City subway system. In many stations, especially the busier ones, a variety of musicians - some quite talented - perform on the subway platforms, offering weary commuters a much needed respite from their hectic days. The subways are a cavernous space, filled with massive echoes and all manners of background noise, from rumbling trains to children crying. And yet, even when the musicians were out of eye range and in fact, a considerable distance away, I could tell immediately that I was hearing live music. What was it about the music that made it so readily identifiable as being live? Surely it wasn’t the tonal quality, as this was massively distorted by the time it reached my ears. What was making it through all the din was the dynamics. By dynamics I mean not only the ability go from loud to soft but the rate at which music does so; indeed, what clearly identified the music as being live was the notes’ rapid rise times. It really was an eye (ear) opener, and dramatically changed my views on what matters most in musical reproduction. I am of course hardly the first to describe the primary importance of dynamics.

Sadly, and somewhat ironically, dynamics is the area in which most modern speakers are weakest. My realization of this occurred not in NYC but a few thousand miles to the west, specifically Las Vegas, at CES 2003. I remember the fateful moment as if it happened yesterday: I wandered unsuspectingly into the Damoka Audio room, whereupon my eyes were struck by speakers with the largest baffles I had ever seen, measuring greater than 6’ in both height and width. Contained within each baffle were a horn and two large woofers. I later learned that these behemoths were Klangfilm Bionors, which David Karmelli had painstakingly dissembled, shipped across the country, and reassembled solely to for our listening enjoyment, as they were not for sale. I had no idea what to expect so I took a seat and listened. What greeted my ears was reproduced music unlike any I had heard previously. The distinguishing feature was not the tone (though this was quite good, due in no small measure to the associated Lamm amplification), nor the frequency extension (which was limited), nor the soundstage (which was odd, to say the least) but rather, the sense that the music simply flowed from the speakers, unimpeded. After listening to the Klangfilms, virtually all other speakers - including the very large, top-of-the-line speakers from the world’s most respected manufacturers - seemed to be running with the brakes on.

Soon thereafter I learned that a number of other speakers - predominantly high-efficiency, in particular horns - also displayed breathtaking dynamics. To say the least, it was disconcerting to realize how severely dynamically compromised were all the speakers I had heard, and enjoyed, to that point.
So what does this have to do with hyper-realism? Just this: I believe that hyper-realism is frequently employed as a means to compensate for the lack of dynamics which characterize many modern audio systems. Speakers (in particular, though electronics can also contribute) with poor dynamics drain music of its vitality, its energy, its life. In response, designers crank up the treble or presence region, while listeners often crank up the volume “to 11” in an attempt to bring life to the music. Unfortunately, exaggerated detail, while initially ear-catching, is a poor substitute for true dynamics.

Oddly enough, the dynamic limitations of most speakers is rarely acknowledged in mainstream audio. It is not entirely clear whether this is due to ignorance or to a state of denial, though I suppose it is a combination of the two. It seems that nearly every speaker review praises its dynamics, despite the fact that, at least to my ear, this is often the speaker’s weakest property. A few months ago I read a review in a prestigious print magazine, of a monitor speaker. The reviewer spoke about the speakers’ excellent dynamics, commenting on how there were no dynamic limitations up to (if memory serves) a listening level of about 94 dB. Presumably, what this reviewer (and many others like him) meant was that the speakers had no overt distortions up to that volume, but this is to miss half the point. The reviewer was focusing on distortions of the commission variety, whereas dynamic compression is a distortion of omission. That is, the system is truncating information, rather than adding it. A musical signal is not a sine wave; rather, it comprises multitudes of tiny peaks and valleys. A system with dynamic compression cannot move quickly enough to reproduce all those speaks and valleys, so it in effect smoothes out the signal. Contained within those tiny hills and valleys is the musical detail; thus a system that smoothes them, lacks resolution. To compensate for the loss of actual resolution, designers create systems with artificial resolution - hyper-realism - which brings us full circle.

Is hyper-realism just another example of truth over beauty? Alas, I think it is not. For one thing, I do not regard hyper-realism as in any way beautifying the music; if anything, it is the antithesis of beauty in that it often contributes to listener fatigue, and fosters a dependence on excess. Another fundamental difference has to do with the “why” of hyper-realism. As discussed in my earlier article, certain deviations from accuracy are responses to inherent limitations (inherent that is, to today’s technology) in the recording or playback chain. Hyper-realism, in contrast, is used to compensate for a weakness that is in fact easily correctable. In medicine, certain diseases are classified as iatrogenic, which is defined as “induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures .” So it is with modern audio; in trying to improve certain parameters, designers sacrificed other parameters that are more important. In essence, the baby was thrown out with the bath water. Hyper-realism appears to be a means of compensating for this one step forward, two step backward approach. The way out this conundrum requires a paradigm shift, in which designers and consumers once again focus on the reproduction of music, rather than sound.