MUSINGS: Fidelity, Immersion, and Realism (FIR) - Levels of Audiophile Attainment

As we start 2024, let's think about a "big picture" topic. Like with most things in life, I find it useful to think about the overarching philosophy - the "forest" if you will - alongside the details - the "trees" - which is when we get down to measurements and tests of specific products. Hopefully by doing this we can develop a more comprehensive understanding of whatever it might be we're engaged in.

As discussed years ago, I don't think the audiophile hobby is a monolithic entity based on only one core pursuit. In reality, it's a multitude of hobbyist pursuits ranging from the "music lover", to the "hardware audiophile", to subgroups like the "gear hoarder", "LP collector", even "high end (luxury) enthusiast", each of us at varying levels of emotional intensity; even resulting in more "fetishistic" extremes! 🙄

We're not a particularly large group of hobbyists. Sure, there are billions of music lovers out there, but when it comes to guys (mostly) wanting to talk about audiophile hardware, geeky high-fidelity (transparency) reproduction, and things that appear extravagant to the general public, there really are not many of us. It's also hard to know if this hobby is growing, stagnant or diminishing in numbers.

As I look around at magazine reviews and YouTube videos, that idea of stagnation has entered my mind many times over the last few years. Not just wondering about the numbers of audiophiles and whether the hobby is growing, but rather, in what directions are we as hobbyists going forward, if even at all!

Approaching the mid-2020's, are we still in search of "High Fidelity" after all these decades and the multitudes of products? Maybe, maybe not... Let's talk about some ideas which I believe are the goals that audiophiles can aspire to which I've acronymized as FIR - Fidelity, Immersion, and Realism.

Objective I: Fidelity (aka "resolution", "accuracy" to the music source)

Looking at reviews, especially the more objective ones over the last decade, I think you'll see a clear progression in many areas of the audiophile pursuit when it comes to improved fidelity especially within the computer audio space. DACs have gotten objectively (and for me, subjectively) better with vastly improved low-noise levels, lower distortion, and jitter control (which was never particularly audible). The gear used in professional studios like ADCs have also progressively improved (correlated with the improved ADCs I've used over the years for my measurements). The software available and computing hardware likewise continue to move forward with capability, speed, energy efficiency, and cost. Even the home network hardware has progressed toward 2.5 and 10 gigabit technologies as discussed.

At the same time, despite the objectively better components, if we explore the audibility of these advances, we see that blind listening tests with different devices, high-resolution content, and listening for distortions are clearly not showing that many listeners can discern much if any difference despite some rather obvious, measurable, variations. The common belief among many audiophile hobbyists is that humans have remarkably sensitive hearing and that even minuscule changes can be noticed with critical listening that instruments can't pick up - I don't believe this is true, evidence against this is powerful based on findings and personal experience. Often, what is "seen" determines what is reported as "heard".

This speaks of the threshold of human auditory ability which needs to inform our thinking about the "high fidelity" goals for this hobby. For example, the fact that many audiophiles still believe LP playback (with its limitations) is in any way "hi-res" or even the "best" sounding music source is another indicator that for many listeners, what they seek is not audible "fidelity" but subjective "euphonia" since LPs add a lot of coloration to the sound, or some seek the vinyl ritual, or other pleasures of the anachronistic technology - nothing wrong with any of this so long as we're honest about it!

This is why I think we have to honestly ask ourselves whether for the most part, we're actually simply moving sideways now in terms of advancing fidelity. When it comes to modern, objectively-excellent devices, is there any need to increase fidelity any more when it comes to DACs and probably amplifiers? (Even decades ago as in this Clark and Masters ABX article in the late 1990's, blind testing had already questioned whether high quality vacuum tube amps and solid state amplifiers sounded all that different.)

My belief is that other than speakers, the rooms we listen in, and optimizations we can make with DSP (like this), potential gains in fidelity from audio components will be limited because we've hit the ceiling in many aspects. It might not be unreasonable to even imply that we are at the end of meaningful "hi-fi" as it applies to common 2-channel audio components since almost any reasonable streamer, DAC, and amplifier can be quite easily made to be objectively excellent here in the 21st Century and at prices almost anyone can afford in the Industrialized World.

So where else should (must?) we go? Thankfully, I don't think contemporary 2-channel Fidelity in itself - as defined by the ability of components to accurately reproduce the music data - is the only goal of music reproduction nor the only future for music content creators to expand into.

Objective II: Immersion (aka "spatial", "3D")

No matter how much fidelity or accuracy we reproduce a 1-channel/monophonic signal, it will still sound mono, right?

With quite some imagination, I suppose one could hear that the mono singer(s) and instrument(s) are performing in your room. Years ago, when I was young before coming to North America, we only had a black and white TV at home. I don't recall complaining until the family bought our first color TV set. Since then, B&W has obviously looked like a poor replica of reality although we can appreciate the artistic intent in some films (like say Schindler's List), and it can convey pleasurable nostalgia.

So too with audio immersion. Despite the common connotation, the term "stereo" does not simply mean 2-channel. It comes from the Greek for "solid", as in the characteristic of something having presence, that's formed, has hardness, concreteness, three-dimensionality. In order to achieve a good "stereo" audio image, we try to re-create that sound field in the room to emulate how "3D" vibrations would stimulate our auditory system as in real life. As audiophiles, we must break free from some misguided notion that we should be stuck in a 2-channel hobby basically since the 1960's! Having two discrete channels of audio delivery is but the first, not the only, step within the continuum of achieving spatial Immersion.

Although 2-channel audio can certainly create an impressive soundstage within the limits of the technology at the sweet-spot, make sure to see the article on ambiophonics to potentially enhance the quality further with crosstalk cancellation. However, if we want to proceed into achieving an even more "solid" sonic image, then more channels can be used to improve dimensionality and speakers can anchor the center audio, surround channels to improve instrument/vocal placements or convey reflected ambiance including sounds from behind the listener. These days, height channels can fill out the space above us to enhance the sense of being immersed in a fully "volumious" soundscape should content creators choose to do that.

I believe that for the perfectionist audiophile, achieving improved Immersion beyond 2-channels should not be just an optional afterthought. It's something to aspire to, much more desirable in my opinion than simply accumulating ever-more expensive boxes like fancy amps or even the latest-and-greatest speakers but stuck within the 2-channel limit. Assuming one already has a pretty good hi-fi set-up, we can hit the point of "diminishing returns" or even "no returns" quickly.

Achieving better Immersion is about allowing for the opportunity to expand our experience of what music could sound like and by extension, empowering content creators to use the 360° soundscape. Over time, more of us can experience the intended effect as we upgrade from say a basic 5.1 setup to 7.1 or start incorporating Atmos-type height channels. Art and technology have co-evolved since the time the first cavemen imprinted their palms or doodled cartoons of their prey on stone walls. With expanded technologies, artists can do more, to express more complexity, and when done well, I trust will stimulate the listener with deeper insights and emotions.

Sure, I can enjoy Peter Gabriel's recent album I/O (2023) as 2-channel mixes ("Bright-Side" and "Dark-Side" versions - both DR6), but I find it emotionally more satisfying in the audio room when I can put on the full Atmos-featured "In-Side Mix" (DR13 - see DR discussion here) and be in the "presence" of that experience. As an audiophile listening analytically, I can hear that improved dynamic range, and immersive soundstage from which vocals and instruments emerge around me as characteristics I presume Gabriel intended if not at least approved of as remixed by Hans-Martin Buff. As a music lover, this is more emotionally satisfying after a long day at work, making it the reference version for personal enjoyment.

As discussed previously, there are plenty of older albums; like Dark Side of the Moon, Amused To Death, various King Crimson, some Jethro Tull, Eagles, The Beatles, John Lennon, The Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, Elton John, etc. that have been remixed and remastered for multichannel+/-Atmos worth checking out. No doubt, the experience will not be the same as one might remember "from the old days", and you might in fact find the new presentations to be more enjoyable depending on how well the remixing was done. I would encourage audiophiles to keep an open mind (stay young at heart) and explore the benefits that multichannel immersion brings with other genres of music including electronica, R&B, rap, new age beyond our typical vocal, classical, and jazz demo tracks typically heard at audio shows.

Oh yeah, you might even find the multichannel versions of audiophile-favorite Diana Krall to be very satisfying. 😲

[In decades past, audiophiles have celebrated mastering engineers like Bob Katz, Steve Hoffman, Bob Ludwig, Bernie Grundman, and Barry Diament for the work they've done to produce more natural-sounding and dynamic transfers. I look forward to us celebrating those with skills in the remixing process like Steve Wilson in the last number of years and veterans like Bob Clearmountain. An opportunity for mixing engineers to be known in audiophile circles for good work!]

Objective III: Realism (aka "authenticity", "verity", "the absolute sound?")

Decades ago, when I first saw the magazine The Absolute Sound on the local store racks, I quite liked that name and the ideal that the late Harry Pearson defined as his aspirational goal with high quality audio reproduction allowing us to hear "the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space" (emphases mine). Over the years, we've seen discussions about this definition especially around the time of Mr. Pearson's passing in 2014 (such as this). I also commented on this idea back in late 2022.

This definition suggests that at some level, the ultimate goal of an audiophile system is that of achieving what we all have experienced as being real. There is a hierarchy here when thinking about achieving this ideal. Unless the foundation of Fidelity (accuracy to the source recording be it CD, digital files, stream, or even analog LP and tape) has been reasonably achieved by our equipment, and there is adequate spatial Immersion, one would not be able to close one's eyes and experience a sound that can be considered close to that "absolute sound" by Pearson's definition encoded on the media; that feeling that we're in fact in the presence of an actual performance in a space that's authentic to the original recording. Whether the playback sounds real is a subjective mental construct; the highest level of attainment for any virtual audio reproduction system.

[While the experience of realism is ultimately subjective and judged based on each person's familiarity, it's good to see that more advanced measurement systems are being created to evaluate audio quality including domains like immersion such as the Multi-Dimensional Audio Quality Score (MDAQS) using captured binaural information and the model constructed with listening tests. One critique I would make is that it looks like this model is based on results from general listeners which is fine I think when making mass-appeal products. However, it would be interesting to see an alternate norms version based on trained listeners who prefer "hi-fi"/transparency.] 

"Absolute sound" realism is inherent in the quality of the recording and not something that's possible with all albums, we cannot force a poor recording to sound real regardless of how perfect the hardware. In fact, the more transparent the hardware, the more one may notice artificiality in less-than-ideal recordings. Conversely, to somehow distort one's hi-fi system to make it sound good with a poor recording would be antithetical to achieving good fidelity! Admittedly, most recordings that I listen to are multi-tracked studio productions that were never recorded live in any real space nor with acoustic instruments that can be heard as lifelike. Therefore the goal of Realism is not just about what the audiophile him/herself can accomplish, but rather a combination of our playback systems + the room + the result of a high quality music production process that gave us the recording in the first place. As audiophile consumers, obviously we have no hand in the music production process, but it is our job to select the music we want to hear and hopefully over time, have some influence to champion better-quality recordings from our favorite artists and music labels. This is why over the years, I've been insistent about the importance of obtaining well-mastered music, discuss excessive dynamic range compression, and argue against misguided notions.

No doubt Pearson would have recognized that combination of the music production + playback system as complementary in order to achieve the ideal sound since he maintained a list of favorite classical LPs he thought represented the best examples for him (see list here). For modern audiophiles, just like at one time a high-quality B&W TV image might have sufficed, many of us probably would find Pearson's classical LPs to sound lacking when compared with the quality of what is achievable these days captured as hi-res digital. Especially for classical music, IMO there's no way an LP would be superior to a good digital recording (regardless of PCM or DSD). Historically, classical music lovers applauded the arrival of CD; the audibly lower noise, higher-resolution, temporal stability, revolutionized the sound from pristine acoustic recordings exceeding the best of analog media, including the best tape captures.

[As I've expressed before, when going to audio shows, make sure to ask to compare LP playback with a good digital master in the same showroom and notice the clearly improved fidelity of digital for the vast majority of content. I think for most of us, it's simply obvious despite what many vinylphiles insist.]

Although there is a hierarchical pre-requisite to achieving the sound of "Realism", only some - the minority - of recordings can do this. Many genres these days - electronica, pop, most rock, rap, R&B, among others - are typically not produced with acoustic instruments (or live recordings of amplified/electronic sounds), even vocals are typically altered electronically, and there was never an actual performance since most of the time the sounds came together as bits in a computer.

Furthermore, I don't think many artists even intended to make these albums sound "real", but rather to sound enjoyable/exciting to the listener (since when did a live rap concert sound anything like the recording!?). For studio albums from Pink Floyd, The Beatles, synthpop, etc., the best that the audiophile can do is to play them back with excellent Fidelity, achieving good Immersion such that we can close our eyes, and imagine the presence of the artists and instruments in our listening space pleasurably, rather than consider if there was even ever any "absolute sound" that we're trying to emulate.

For other recordings, we can genuinely aim to reproduce a more realistic sound of Michael Tilson Thomas conducting the San Francisco Symphony at the Davies Symphony Hall (eg. Mahler 1 multichannel SACD). We can also try to achieve natural-sounding realism with the various recordings from audiophile labels (especially multichannel ones) like 2L, Reference Recordings, Channel Classics, Chesky and AIX even though we can recognize that these are unlikely to be popular when it comes to sales numbers. Nonetheless, these are still some of the best sound quality examples out there if we are to push towards absolute Realism.

Summary...

As audiophiles, I think it's important to spend some time thinking about the big picture because it is only by doing this that we can disentangle ourselves from so much of the chatter that exists out there focused typically on meaningless narrow-minded minutiae (like worthless ruminations over the "sound" of cables or ethernet switches, or streamers) or sideways wandering of whether yet another 100lb, $50k, 2-channel amplifier sounds better. The ideas in most of what we read in magazine articles cater to encouraging sales rather than understanding the facts behind the technologies or devices.

For decades, there has been an implication in the literature that the term "hi-fi" is also what "high-end" products are able to deliver - sometimes that could be true, but certainly not always. As discussed previously, I think this is a fallacy. I believe the term "high-end" creates problems when conflated with high-fidelity by creating a kind of luxury cult that justifies increasingly higher prices to the point that we've also seen companies at times obscuring the important role of objective measurements, often peddling unsubstantiated mythologies to justify the expense, and in so doing creating an immature "us vs. them" mentality that excludes normal ways of empirical fact-finding.

Within that "high-end" mindset has also been a tendency for companies to encourage stagnation in the audiophile hobby. For example, a substantial proportion of the high-end companies cater to expensive vinyl playback which is simply incapable of rivaling CD-level fidelity much less high-resolution digital as mentioned above (vinyl advocate histrionics can be seen over the years, also discussed here). Vinyl is also these days incapable of expanding the sense of Immersion and stuck at 2-channels even though back in the '70s we had ill-fated quadraphonic vinyl, a time when the technology simply wasn't mature yet to handle the extra channels at high quality. This is one reason I think why many of these "high-end" companies do not talk about multichannel and magazines have difficulty expanding their coverage. Furthermore, other anachronistic technologies like expensive, hot, Class A tube amps are not really practical for multichannel demands although it can be done.

My hope is that as we are completing the first quarter of the 21st Century, we can as audiophile communities start looking ahead beyond simply "fidelity". Let's encourage creativity and approach sonic reproduction with an embrace of technologies that fully encompass the spatial dimensions. Even if you are totally satisfied with 2-channel stereo, there will be others with different desires, and again that's OK, let's just not obstruct technological progress towards elevated levels of audio production and reproduction.

For me, systems capable of achieving "High-Realism / High-Reality" could be defined as:

Sound systems with the ability to reproduce in a room or through personal audio devices (eg. headphones) the sound of recordings intended to represent an actual acoustic performance with all the dynamics, tonality, transparency (ie. low distortion), temporal resolution, and immersive spatial characteristics as if one were present in that initial performance.

Such systems would already achieve excellent fidelity and have strong immersive capabilities that will offer the full artistic presentation to the listener even if typically we're not listening to the few albums created to convey an actual performance realistically. For context, acoustic classical and jazz recordings together comprise maybe 2% of all music consumed.

Notice the massive R&B/hip-hop consumption! Might be worthwhile talking about this genre within audiophile magazines and reviews to interest some of the younger generations! 😉

Every piece of the production and reproduction chain has a role to play and we audiophiles can do our part with understanding the synergy, and exploiting ways to optimize the quality where we can. As usual, we need to always keep our eyes on the science that makes this possible, being mindful that there are many opinions out there with all kinds of claims. There's clearly nothing wrong with subjective expressions of preferences, but remaining vigilant and classifying what are opinions, mythologies devoid of evidence, and verifiable facts will help keep us rational - not just with audiophile ideas. 🤔

Happy 2024, dear audiophiles. I'm sure this year will bring with it much excitement and turmoil in the world, so it's good to find our musical oases. I hope you're already enjoying the music!

For fun, check out the Christine and the Queens' fever-dreamish version of the Bee Gees' Stayin' Alive!, especially the multichannel mix. An example recording that takes advantage of a system's immersive abilities. This is clearly not realism.

A taste on YouTube: