I think so much depends on recording. Some recordings perhaps yes you can more ignore poor aspects recording to hear what’s really going on, but with other recordings where what’s going on as mixed is just a mess and it’s that mess that is revealed then it becomes less listenable than when smoothed over
I don’t agree, the better a system the better it will play old or new productions as they are..it’s not really about tolerance. However if an old recording sounds unpleasant to listen to due the technology limitations of its time, then I suggest the replay system is not optimal or is sub standard. You should be able to hear the original productions, sure they will sound different from modern multi band compressed recordings and may also have clipping, audible distortion and intermodulation distortion, limited band pass etc but that will add to the period ambience of the original recording. A good system should render these production styles accurately… if it sugars it over its hardly hifi.. but then you dont need hifi to enjoy recorded music, but I would argue you do to listen into it.
Systems and speakers that exaggerate detail by tweaking the eq (and it can be subtle) etc may struggle with non modern recordings.
1 Like
“Fast” sound and fidelity in tempo describe two different things. Fidelity in tempo is about how accurately a system preserves timing—how well it maintains coherence so bass, mids, and treble arrive together, and the music neither rushes nor drags. When temporal fidelity is high, a slow song naturally feels slow and weighty, and a fast song feels quick and energetic. The system isn’t adding its own sense of drive; it’s simply reflecting what’s in the recording.
“Fast,” on the other hand, is a particular sonic character. It usually comes from high slew rate electronics, lightweight drivers, or specific tuning choices. A “fast” presentation emphasizes the attack of notes—the sharp leading edge of a snare hit or guitar pluck—and often shortens the decay so notes stop quickly. This stronger focus on transients makes the music feel more immediate and forward-moving, because the brain uses the attack portion of a sound to track rhythm and momentum.
One way to picture this is through the ADSR envelope of a note. High temporal fidelity reproduces the entire attack–decay–sustain–release curve in proportion. A “fast” system steepens the attack and shortens the release. When the tail of a note ends sooner, the silence arrives sooner, and your brain is ready for the next beat sooner—creating the impression of greater speed, even though the actual tempo hasn’t changed.
Some people confuse audio hifi timings with tempo which I think is what you are suggesting. they are indeed quite different. Timing is about phase coherence and band width… think of it like a filter… if you had a square wave amplified by an amp with poor phase coherence or timing, its edges would become rounded, and the timbral qualities would change. Tiny details and ambience would become indistinct.
Your ADSR analogy works to some extent, but that is more amplitude, as opposed to frequencies with timing. I think perhaps your ADSR analogy would useful to describe Pace.
Musicians can change the real tempo, but recorded music has a fixed one. While audio systems can’t alter that tempo, they can change how clearly the timing information reaches your ears. In audiophile terms, “speed” or “timing” typically refers to transient behavior and clarity rather than actual musical time.
1 Like
Correct - I played a few tracks on different systems , all have different speed and timing etc , and of cos the differences in presentations
A whole confusion of terms here. I find it odd to use forward or laid back as though they are pejorative terms. They’re just different presentations on a scale. Both are just fine.
My Naim system wasn’t forward (to me) but I did have the sense of being front row at events. I eventually realised that age, mild tinnitus and a far greater range of experience of different presentations had led me to the point I wanted to be a few rows back. Awaiting the imminent return of my valve amp from a service it’s been interesting to have the Rega io in as a back up. Once again I’ve moved a few rows up. It’s been very enjoyable but it’s also been a good reminder that I changed my system for a reason.
Where I really struggle is with the idea that good systems expose bad recordings. Firstly, as others have noted, no they don’t. They let you hear so much more.
Secondly, one might think that the world is full of terrible recordings, producers and engineers and that one is an idiot to accept such things so one must have a system which masks such awfulness or pursue a lifetime of audiophile recordings. I think both of these things are simply wrong. Recording engineers in particular are often highly trained and superb at their jobs. Arguably even more so as one winds back through the decades. One doesn’t have to have only 1950s Decca classical to find magnificent recordings in all genres. It really is just nonsense constantly asserting that only so called audiophile recordings or systems are the only way to deal with a thing which doesn’t really exist.
Those who genuinely believe that there are a multitude of bad or poor recordings out there might want detailed testing of their hearing or a long reading session on the weakness of the format of their choice, mastering and much more.
Does this imply that you believe there are no bad recordings, no loudness wars compression, no poor re masters, no cheaply produced compilation ‘best of’ on any media?
Indeed - it is usually part of subtle Eq’ ing. A forward presentation is usually slightly increased upper mid frequencies. A relaxed presentation can be a slightly hollowed lower to upper mid presentation. This is often deliberately undertaken in mastering or mixing to give a feel to a track. But then systems can add their own subtle Eq so it can sometimes double up and that is when perhaps some dont like the final product with certain tracks.
I agree with your observation that some think the world is full of bad producers and mixing engineers - clearly that is not the case. It’s a profession like everything else - there are different styles and average and exceptional ones. I suspect poor ones would not be employed for very long.
The other thing that brings a wry smile - is that you see people mentioning loudness wars … and I think there is a huge misunderstanding on that. That all started with country air play in the US where certain productions where optimised for radio air play so they would be noticed when played in the car.. - and I think this started mainly in the 60s… but that is different to the use of compression in mastering for creative and musical effect. These days social media and Youtube is as important if not more so than radio air play. Highly limited and compressed content does not play well with lossy encoders such as Mp3, AAC and Ogg.
Nowadays there are standards for loudness compression and average loudness for broadcast and streamed content - certainly in Europe (that is where LUFs processing comes in). Nearly all commercial music is artistically compressed to sound attractive and dynamic and punchy. If you hear a a non compressed or multi band compressed mix it will often sound flat, uninspiring and even a mess - sounds might clash and vocals hard to follow and feel un emotional. Compress and eq and give space around sounds at different frequencies and rhythmic timing - and even side chaining makes a track bounce, lively and engaging as well as feeling super emotional if that is the effect wanted. That is nearly all through controlled types of compression. If you have a revealing system - you can often hear the production techniques being undertaken on modern recordings.
2 Likes
Interesting
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.