Two Type of sound and listener preference are there more?

Owning a lot of McIntosh, I am in the musicality camp.  I don't care how accurate it is, I want the music to sound pleasing to me.  If I can listen to hours on end without fatigue, then my goal has been met.

The last thing I want is to wake up the morning, after a late night listening session, and feel like I was at a wedding reception being blasted by a brass band.... Those post-wedding reception mornings are ugly.

No thanks. I vote musicality....

Not sure if the two types are mutually exclusive. For me, the soundstaging and imaging are what draws me first into the music and then I start paying attention to the rest of the factors such as details, etc. I can usually tell within 2 minutes if I'm going to like the system or not, regardless of what music is played. 

I’m definitely now (finally) in the real is good camp, but that may be merely because I’ve now been after it for 45+ yrs and have managed to cough up enough cash over time for what it was I was ultimately shooting for.

IOW, I suspect most folks relatively speaking would be more in the just starting out category than that and that the apparent disparity between the real is good understanding of what is possible and everything else may be more of an experience-vs-financial opportunity thing than anything else...IOW all that may be perfectly normal or predictable to an extent. Many people may be inclined to dabble in the hobby during their first few years or even for decades before the ultimate decision may take hold to up their game and really consider what it may take to get beyond all that.

@audiotroy - you might want to track if the hearing of either camp is omni vs. uni directional - it might explain a lot

Omni Directonal hearing people do not like being in a crowded room

Uni Directonal hearing people can focus on a single conversation across a crowded room

I'm Omni and my wife is Uni.

I like details - she likes musicality

Go figure :-)

Well, FWIW, if I had to pick one of the two camps - - I'm a Type 2.

OP:
Please define "absolute sound" versus "musical"

IMO the question involves greater complexity than a simple division between the two characterizations that have been suggested. As the varied responses in the following thread from a number of years ago seem to make clear:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/which-attributes-do-you-value-most

An excerpt from the OP in that thread:

Here is a list of attributes commonly valued by audiophiles, in no particular order:

1. Resolution
2. Soundstaging
3. PRaT
4. Dynamics
5. Tonal balance
6. Harmonic content
7. Accuracy
8. Coherence
9. Frequency extension
10. Scale

The list could go on and on, but you get the idea. I’m interested to hear which attributes people prioritize above others.

My response in that thread:

1)Harmonic accuracy.

Which in turn encompasses or is affected by many of the factors that have been mentioned (tonal balance, harmonic content, accuracy, clarity, resolution, coherence, lifting of veils, freedom from distortion, etc.). To me "harmonic accuracy" is the most significant determinant of how "real" the instruments sound. I realize that by lumping its contributing factors together I am begging the question :-)

2)Clean transient response.

3)Dynamic range.

4)Frequency extension.

5)Image scale.

But given a choice between the two philosophies described in the OP, I’m definitely in the camp of "trying to reproduce the absolute sound and use live music as their guide."

Regards,
-- Al

What does the word "musical" mean? Can "musical" be analytical? Is live music "musical?" Is the perception of live music analytical? When is recorded music "musical?" When is recorded music "analytical?" Can it be both?

What does the word "analytical" mean in the context of listening to the sound of music, either live or reproduced?  Is the genre of music a factor?

What are some examples of all the above?

Real is good

@markalarsen
"Real is good"

What is "real" when we refer to reproduction of music in our home? Is it always "good?"

I agree with Ivan in that more money will often buy a closer approach (although still only an approach) to the "real". I also agree with Al that it has many more factors. Since I cannot afford a very close approach what's "real", I have certain sonic priorities that bring me closer to the feeling of sonic reality in reproduction.
For me, the priorities are 
1) Dynamic range
2)Coherence
3)Harmonic accuracy
4)Imaging/soundstaging.

The details man, I want the details.

Most of my favorite recordings are in live settings, but I'm definitely a Type 2 listener.  I'm also a big fan of tubes, which I perceive many Type 1 listeners look down upon because they claim they add coloration that distorts accuracy.

OP might as well have asked: "how high is up?"

I would say camp 1 is the analytical crowd that is left brain dominate. These are your engineers, doctors, and tech professionals. They like their music colored to the analytical/detailed side. They believe that this sound signature is neutral. They enjoy Benchmark amps and DACs as well as passive preamps. They trust their ears less and gain valuable insights from measurements and white papers.

Camp 2 is the feelings/emotion dominated group (right brain subjectivist). They tend to like a warmer presentation and gravitate towards valves and vinyl. They judge their gear by how it makes them feel. They are sometimes scorned by camp 1 hardcore objectivists for creating sound reproduction that is different than what the artist intended. You can find camp 2 members in the ZU Audio room at shows. 

seanheis1, you assume that people who like exact (analytical) sound don't seek emotions.  Read below, especially response 2:

OP:

I don't pretend to be a professional reviewer (in fact this is the first time I've been moved to review any equipment), so can't explain exactly the differences, but it was akin to listening to a live acoustic performance versus listening to music through loudspeakers. The difference was not slight - it was dramatic. There is no "tingle factor" and no goose-bumps when listening with the Benchmark. If anyone says that the Benchmark is more accurate - frankly I don't care - I listen to music with my ears, not an oscilloscope! It was dull and lifeless by comparison. If you listen to live music there's inevitably background noise (you're sharing the auditorium with other people) and the acoustics are possibly not as good as a recording studio, but despite all the drawbacks, live music is so much more exciting to listen to. Similarly with the valve amps, an evening listening to music is thoroughly enjoyable. With the Benchmark it was little better than loud background music. Furthermore, the inclination was to turn down the volume of the Benchmark and turn up the SETs - inaccuracies, slight background noise and all! Music should be a thrilling experience and the Benchmark sadly doesn't offer thrills.

Response1 (John Siau):

Peter,

This is John Siau, VP of Benchmark.

Thanks for taking the time to document your experience with the Benchmark AHB2.

The AHB2 is well suited to use with high-efficiency speakers. The low noise allows noise-free operation with very high efficiency speakers.

Of equal importance, the AHB2 virtually eliminates the zero-crossing distortion that is normally produced conventional Class AB push-pull output stages. This is especially important for high efficiency speakers because the amplifier will spend so much time in low power region where crossover distortion can become most audible. The AHB2 behaves like a Class-A amplifier in that it is free from this very objectionable form of distortion.

But the AHB2 isn't for everyone. If you prefer an amplifier that enhances your listening experience then the AHB2 is not for you.

Your SET amplifier is specifically intended to add the euphonic qualities produced by the single-ended tube topology. This specific character is produced by the unique non-linearities that are characteristic of single-ended tube topology. The SET topology provides significant coloring of the music in a way that many people enjoy. If this is what you prefer, then you will be very unhappy with most other power amplifiers.

The AHB2 and SET amplifiers are on the very opposite end of the spectrum. You are completely correct when you say that the difference is dramatic.

The AHB2 is a much different listening experience. In contrast to an SET amplifier, the AHB2 is designed to be virtually distortion-free. The output of the AHB2 will sound exactly like the input. The AHB2 will not enhance or improve what goes in.

Please understand that this is a mater of taste. Many people enjoy the coloration produced by SET amplifiers.

Amplifiers can fall into three categories:

1) Amplifiers that add nothing to the audio
2) Amplifiers that add musically-disturbing distortion
3) Amplifiers that add musically pleasing coloration

The AHB2 falls into category 1, your SET amplifier falls into category 3.

Technically "coloration" is distortion but I think the word "distortion" gives a completely misleading description of something that may actually enhance the sound.

Again, it comes down to a matter of preference.

Response 2:

My experience with the Benchmark AHB2 driving sensitive speakers is somewhat different. In my current setup with Benchmark DAC2 HGC/AHB2, I am driving a pair of Klipschorns with a 105 dB sensitivity so in that sense they would be comparable to the Avantgarde speakers.

In my 25 years of of experience with mostly tube amplifiers of all sorts, I have never come across a more emotionally involving amplifier than the AHB2. It is exactly because it doesn't "interpret" the music by adding coloration or any artificial sense of ambience or reverberation that it is so fascinating to listen to. The AHB2's ability to reproduce the timbre and texture of acoustic instruments is beyond anything I have experienced before - just listen to brass or woodwind! - and the precision with which it reveals the actual acoustic properties of the recording venue, whether it be a small café or a concert hall, is second to none. At least to my ears. I think what captured my attention from the very first instant was how honest and genuine the sound is. If it is in the recording, it is there, otherwise not.

This amplifier keeps me on the edge of my seat in excitement and anticipation even with recordings that I have known for years and not thought very highly of, so in my view it is the very antithesis of boring. I don't remember having ever been so moved by reproduced music as with this Benchmark combo. FYI, I almost exclusively listen to classical music and much of it in hi-rez, but I have to say that well-recorded CDs are also much more enjoyable and listenable now than before.

Seanheis, dude way way off.

The type of sound your prefer has nothing to do with your brain being analytical or not.

It has to do with taste and expectations as well as experience. 

Why does one person love vanilla while another one likes chocolate?

In the case of sound, some people compare everything to the question of "how does it sound compared to the real experience of the instrument, this type of listener craves the life like experience and it is about being one with what is actually there. Unflavored, unfiltered, reality. If the recording sounds bad don't play it. 

Vs.

The listener who feels that the experience has to be pleasing overall first, and if the recording is bad, they flavor their systems by choosing components that mirror their tastes. Reality isn't as important as being able to relax into the experience. Processing is less of an issue, it is about turning off the brain's processing and giving into the experience.

Think of it as having a really fine steak, listener A will relish the flavor of the steak maybe with a dash of salt and pepper, listner B will add Ketchup and A1 sauce to make an amalgem of flavors. Unmaked and unfiltered. Changing what is there to match personal tastes.

Not a dig at carnivores or how you like eating your steak it is to illustrate a point. 

Fun thread.

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor

Type One: Detail, clarity, soundstage, the high resolution/accuracy camp. People who fall into this camp are trying to reproduce the absolute sound and use live music as their guide.

Live music in the recording studio or live music in a venue? 

For me, there are a handful of factors that create a live music feeling....like the band is playing in my room. 

They are:

1.  Dipole radiation pattern. 

2. No crossover above around 1500 hz.

3. No enclosed (box) speakers

4. SET or SEP amp. Or pure Class A. A simple design with little or no  NFB is preferred. 

5. A room that is not totally dead. The room needs some energy that is not absorbed.  

6. A much smaller factor but still relevant is the DAC. NOS or R2R are IME closer to live music than Delta Sigma.  

I find the distinction made in the OP to be too artificial to apply to myself, or many other audiophiles that I know.

Much of what is mentioned isn’t mutually exclusive. For instance, I find most often “real” to entail “more musical.”

Whenever I listen to live voices/instruments my overriding impression is how much more seductively rich they are in virtually all the things I prize. There is so much more in terms of body, harmonic/timbral richness and ease when listening to a real voice, violin, cello, trombone or whatever. The versions through most hi fi systems sound so reduced, electronic and tonally bleached.

It’s even true of lots of amplified music. If the amplification/speaker system is of decent quality I hear far more character and richness even in a single synth or electric guitar than in a home hi fi system.


However, few affordable home systems could recreate the impact of amplified shows and our ears probably wouldn’t want those sound levels every day anyway.
So I’m not expected my a recreation of hat type of live experience.

But the way I find myself stopped in the street to listen to a live instrument being played, due to the richness of the sound, is my touchstone for the type of qualities I value in high end audio: timbral complexity, richness, ease, body, organic character. (Not to mention dynamics that communicate the zeal of a performance).

To that end I’ve always found myself preferring the type of tube amplification that increased to my ear those qualities.
Someone who was sticking to the division created by the OP would likely read my use of an older Conrad Johnson amp (Premier 12s) from the time they were thought as classically “tubey” as indicating I am simply trying to sweeten the sound instead of going for a “warts and all” experience of the sources. Hence I’d be put in the “musical not real” camp. But that’s not correct: I use such amplification because every time I compared to solid state amps the tube amp version struck my ears as sound more realistic - more rounded, organic, more ease, etc.

So I have no qualms about introducing certain types of distortion into my system but it’s in the service of making the sound closer to what I hear in real life, which is also to me “more musical.”

I suspect this whole debate, a debate that pits one camp against another camp is probably a holdover from the 80s when such limited views of audio were developed and promulgated by audio magazines and reviewers and audiophiles. What is needed, I submit, is a paradigm shift away from these rather cliche views of sound and sound preferences toward a new definition of great or ideal sound, if there can be such a thing. And what is it audiophiles are really trying to achieve. Start with the premise we’re stuck with the recordings we’ve got, there’s no going back, for better or worse, and try to figure what is still wrong with playback system that keeps holding us back. There’s nothing that can be done with overly compressed CDs and vinyl save reissuing them in restored dynamics but that appears rather unlikely. Not everyone listens to iPods. But the die is cast.

I’m most definitely in the second category.  And more so with the changes I’ve made to my system. 
As a long time professional fine art photographer, I’ve often wrestled with the issue of ‘accurate reproduction’ of reality. Finally understanding that, for me, it is a photograph I’m creating, not a record of what was in front of me at the the time. but rather an expression of my perception of that reality.  And a communication of that perception. 
i find the reproduction of music very similar. In the end it is an interpretation of the performance we hear, no matter how close to parity with a live performance we come. So why not make that interpretation as satisfying as possible, by whatever means?   Maximizing the pleasure of the listening experience is subjective, by definition.  Accuracy in some objective measure is irrelevant to me. 

There are two types of people in this world, those that divided the world into two types of people and those who don't.  As others have pointed out, it's far more complex and nuanced.

Type One: Detail, clarity, soundstage, the high resolution/accuracy camp. People who fall into this camp are trying to reproduce the absolute sound and use live music as their guide.

High resolution and accuracy should be a path to excellent tone.  We are all at the mercy of the recording, but a cello should sound like a cello.

Type Two: Musicality camp, who favors tone and listenability over the high resolution camp. Dynamics, spl capabilty, soundstaging are less important. The ability for a system to sound real is less important than the overall sound reproduced "sounds good."

Musicality and high resolution are not mutually exclusive.  I believe most experienced audiophile seek the high resolution coupled with long-term listenability.  In blunt terms, many audiophile oriented systems have too much treble when compared to live, unamplified music.

Finally, there's a common sense consideration.  Does it really make sense to spend tens of thousands of dollars putting together a system that only sounds "good" on a limited number of recordings and makes most of the music you like sound crummy?   Again, we are at the mercy of the recording.

Broadly speaking Dave is absolutely right.

Some people like the real thing and getting as close as possible to that - true high fidelity.

Others don’t care so much about accuracy - they want their system to enhance the sound with musicality (musicality being their preferred presentation). This is not high fidelity but it is immensely enjoyable and fun - a bit like cooking to your own tastes rather then strictly following a recipe.

Ultimately what are we trying to achieve. Sound that is engaging, clean, clear, nothing harsh that hurts our ears? Two or three guys sitting around a campfire at night with acoustic guitars and a Cajon singing is as real as it gets. Trying to record that moment and mix it and replay that through an amplified system can never be exactly the same. IE your position to the live music, backround noise, mics, recording equip, ect. I am an audio engineer and mix live music. I ultimately change the way people will hear the musicians. Every event has its own acoustic challenges. I use my ears to accomplish this. I add and subtract different frequencies to make it sound as close to how I think it should sound using my lifelong experience as an avid audiophile. A different engineer will make it sound different because of his preferences. My point is that what we try to achieve in our home systems is very personal. I have spent a lot of money on my home system just because of my love of music. Every piece of equipment adds or subtracts some color in the experience. There is no right or wrong. Our brains perceive things differently. I can be from both camps depending on the music and situation. We are all unique with different ears and brains so its allot more complicated than that. Is there audio nirvana? I think I will only experience this in heaven.

I have long been fascinated by live vs reproduced sound. I have raw recordings I’ve made of myself playing acoustic guitar, my son practicing saxophone, family members voices etc, and I’ve used those to do direct live vs reproduced comparisons with many speakers I’ve owned. It’s been fascinated to find my acoustic memory is better than I’d guess: those speakers that, when I first hear them at a store, show etc stroke me as “getting it right” have indeed been the ones that hold up best in the direct comparisons of recorded voice/instruments vs the real thing.

Its amazing how well some speakers have reproduced the sound of my guitar and the impression of it being played in the room.  

The freakiest one is the recorded my pf
my young son practicing sax.   When played through my current Thiel speakers or through my MBLs from just outside the room you woulld swear someone was in there playing a sax, and I’ve filled a few people with it.

"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture"…a quote attributed to more than one author, but could be applied to writing about audio. Any system sounds right when you decide that for yourself. I am professionally involved in live music, have been for over 50 years as a working musician and live sound technician, and I would never claim to know what sounds right for anybody, except that my taste is imposed on people attending the concerts I mix, and that's with the artists approval (sound check is important as I want the artist to be very happy). It's frustrating enough just to get friend's to care at all about good sounding home audio, and consequently I don't really try too hard to get anybody to care. Note that recordings aren't live (unless you rent Carnegie hall to listen to your rig, it's simply not the same), and that's fine as long as said recordings sound good to YOU…I suggest to people who actually do care about home sound to simply change things until you get it to fit your tastes…works for me.

Musical is real.

Trying to record that moment and mix it and replay that through an amplified system can never be exactly the same. IE your position to the live music, backround noise, mics, recording equip, ect. I am an audio engineer and mix live music.

And don’t forget the sound of the cabling and power cords that were used. 😉

This makes for a good read:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/music/

dancing about architecture...love that
way more complex than two camps
start making your own recordings ;-) good advice
but finding that perfect microphone is difficult....
ears to taste...Wolf is on to something....i go nuts if the piano is cracked open just a wee bit.......

You ask this { Are there more then this as two distincly different camps?} and end with this { Please discuss, you can cite examples of products or systems but keep to the topic of sound and nothing else.} so whats this all about then? Also poster mentions only 2 camps and in his mind one is rt one is wrong?  Things are never blk and white shades of grey exist.

SEVERAL folks here have got it right, esp.geoffkait.  I listened to Pioneer receivers playing Stevie Wonder vinyl back in college and it sounded great.  Few people back then had better systems then that- tube lovers I would imagine with speakers no one had ever heard of.  Now we have many more sources with different engineering involved before you even consider playback, And things are moving so fast that some have very advanced technology in use while i still hang on to my cassette deck to listen to an occasional tape.  Was sound in the 60's inferior when i rocked out to the 1st Led Zeppelin album?  I had a BSR turntable for Pete's sake, but it still made me VERY happy.  
    My system now makes Mozart sound just right, so I don't even care if LZ-1 sounds OK or not.  SO what camp do you put me in?  Everything has changed and been transformed from one "idea" of a sound system to another (actually many "others").   "Accuracy" is the 1st principle of sound reproduction, but that goes for the entire chain from the note in the studio to the note as it strikes your ear at home.  So "compromise" would then be the 2nd principle- adapting as best we can to "what is" rather than to what is theoretically possible. 

You ask this { Are there more then this as two distincly different camps?} and end with this { Please discuss, you can cite examples of products or systems but keep to the topic of sound and nothing else.} so whats this all about then? Also poster mentions only 2 camps and in his mind one is rt one is wrong? Things are never blk and white shades of grey exist.

I’m going to put you in the objectivist camp. You want proof and flaws in logic stand out to you. Some of his statements also had me scratching my head, but in the big picture he went out on a limb and created a really interesting thread...so kudos to the audio dr. I hope to hear his responses. 

@seaheis" They trust their ears less and gain valuable insights from measurements and white papers."

I am on the detail side and I recently bought a Benchmark AHB2 amp and DAC3L so you got that assumption correct. However, I trust my ears and that is why I don't do the colored sound stuff.

BYW - those 2 Benchmark units are outstanding.

Many good insightful comments here.
Prof, my experience of listening to live acoustical instruments is the same impression that you describe. So full, rich and vivid/colorful, very warm when heard in person and up close . just immensely emotionally engaging.

Many audio components seem to sacrifice this character for higher frequency energy and presumably increased detail and accuracy (ends up too thin/lean sounding, stripped of the beautiful natural tone/harmonics) . IMO, Oh well, Wolf wisely summed it up , just try to achieve what sounds right to you. +1.
Charles

03-10-2018 2:45pm
@seaheis" They trust their ears less and gain valuable insights from measurements and white papers."

I am on the detail side and I recently bought a Benchmark AHB2 amp and DAC3L so you got that assumption correct. However, I trust my ears and that is why I don't do the colored sound stuff.

BYW - those 2 Benchmark units are outstanding.

Hi, you trusting your ears means that you are not a hardcore objectivist. There are very few far right objectivists on this forum. They tend to hang out on Reddit and AV Science forums and will sometimes attack folks who use their subjective ears to make comparisons that are not done using volume matched ABX testing.

Some folks love the Benchmark gear and some folks like it at first, but then ultimately find it fatiguing. I find Benchmark amps and DACs to be colored towards the detailed/analytical side...harmonics seem missing to me...so IMO that makes them less musical. Having said that, if I had a room and speakers that created too warm or even a dark sound presentation, Benchmark gear would likely create a wonderful synergy to balance things out. 
 

  

 

Here is the Doctor's perspective.

We tune for resolution with musicality, This is too say there is a way of creating detail and alive dynamics and still retain a sembalance of listenaiblity.

The high resolution school is the ability to hear a cymbol crash and for a drum to go twack and pressurize a room so it sounds real and believable. 

If a speaker can't play loud without compression it could be considered a problem if you are trying to reproduce music accurately.

The arguement as put forth is not to make a system which only sounds good on certain recordings, but doesn't make all recordings sound good even bad ones. You have to choose and tune your components very carefully.

We came up with this analogy years ago we call it the Coffe drinkers guide to Audiology.

First start off with a high end coffee bean lets say from Sumatra and clean, cold water, and an appropriate coffe maker one that can extract the best possible flavor, here comes the analogy:

On one extreme is the guy who drinks hot black no cream, no sugar, this listener craves the maximium clarity and realisim he would be on one side of the scale,

In the middle a would be the guy who likes his coffee  with a little cream or milk just to  take the edge off, lets say he is -1

Lets say next you add a touch of sugar, just a pinch, you may now be -2

and as you start to add more milk to le6e say 1/3 the coffe you keep moving away -3 and more sugar -4.

till you are the opposite part of the scale where you can't taste the coffee at all but have created something that is delightful to your palate. 

So if you understand what we tune for we strive for neutral with just the edge taken off as close to a neutral reference.

So in this reality camp speakers that have excellent dynamic range, are tonally accurate, and have great speed and clarity and can image well would be very desirable.

If you are in the more musical camp, imaging  may not necessarily be as inportant than by having a very smooth sound, dyanmic range may also not be as important as perhaps this listener plays very softly or plays music like small ensembles. 

Hope that adds a bit more fuel.

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ

Some folks love the Benchmark gear and some folks like it at first, but then ultimately find it fatiguing. I find Benchmark amps and DACs to be colored towards the detailed/analytical side...harmonics seem missing to me.

Here is part of the review on avmentor.net:

The overall impression is that the system is able to pass into the listening room both the harmonic richness and the tonal balance of the recording. The Benchmark pair offered near-flawless attack/release times and sounded full and impressively present even in small details, a behavior that reinforces the sense of precision and carries the listener a step closer to the live performance.

kijanki, it comes down to taste and compared to what?? IMO, the only losers are those that don’t audition enough gear.

Here is a comparison of the AHB2 to the Schiit Vidar by the audiophool.

The tonal balance of the AHB2 tends towards lean. It’s not bright. From the mids on up, the balance is excellent. The bass volume is like the D-sonic class D amp recently reviewed, lower in level compared to Vidar. This helps add a sense of clarity. I am unsure whether VIdar or AHB2 is clearer sounding at this point as the AHB2 seems to simplifies music (and simplification sometimes lends itself to a clearer sound). Will try out more tracks; but currently as it stands, I’d give the AHB2 the benefit of the doubt and a slight nod in clarity.

Where the AHB2 totally falls apart is in the plankton, layering, texture, microdynamics, soundstage, and immediacy department. Upon a switch back to the AHB2 for the Vidar, my 9 year old son was like "that other one (Vidar) was WAY better!" The difference to me was immediately apparent (like in two seconds) on the initial and first switch to the Vidar.

The stage and the music along with it just got sucked in to 2D plane, much like a how an NOS DAC would do it. But worse, because not just that, musical information that was abundant with the Vidar, the guitar and vocal textures, smack of lips, breaths, mix overlays, ambient information, reverb, etc. suddenly dropped away. It was pretty dramatic of a change. Don’t get me wrong, Vidar is competent but hardly the bee’s knees (which I still consider the Hegel H2 or Pioneer M22 to be). TBH, I’m not going to pull the H2 out to compare because it would be a waste of time.

Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
www.audiophool.org/blog

Doctor, I'm not sure how imaging can fit into a preference camp. Imaging is more to do with factors like driver spacing, crossover point, size and number of drivers, and baffle size/shape.

High dynamic range speakers that can pressurize a room and look like coffins are typically weakest in the imaging department, whereas smaller point source type speakers tend to be imaging champs. I'm not saying that you are wrong, I just don't understand where you are coming from.  

If you are in the more musical camp, imaging may not necessarily be as inportant than by having a very smooth sound, dyanmic range may also not be as important as perhaps this listener plays very softly or plays music like small ensembles.

Sounds like the Doctor is more interested in drumming up business by oversimplifying the exercise of system building by creating the impression that systems are best designed by only targeting original sound expectations, and that anything falling outside that should be carefully rejected (adding an unrealistic degree of technical difficulty)...and naturally thereby creating the dependence on a dealer for ’expert’ advice on a topic that could just as easily be left on its own since much of the fun of the hobby is in the discovery of the unexpected surprises, even in the midst of what we might otherwise think of as a purchasing mistake - like how much we didn’t realize we might like, say, imaging...until we heard it in, say, a new amp we were trying out for ourselves, even if the component was for us a no go for other reasons and we returned it. But, what would the next move then be having run across something that made us rethink our sound priorities? I think it unnecessarily constrictive to suggest that the only valid expectations are those we originally start with. And if it’s going to be a given that our expectations are subject to change as we go, what then do we really need the advice of others for? Particularly in advance of the question. I fail to see the need for any of it.

Going by OP's first post I would say Naim Audio gear is a little bit of Type  1 and Type 2.  Their reputation I think was created out of Type 2 sound - the full PRAT without soundstage and super resolution But through the years the Naim sound has changed (without losing the PRAT) but gaining soundstage.  I would imagine that if goung through their gear at different stages from entry system to high (Statement) more of Type 1 sound would appear in the 'Niaim' sound.

for me it´s more a matter of what I´m trying to obtain;
to recreate an exact reproduction of a recording I have no clue what sounded like in the first place
or
create a credible realistic reproduction of a performance in my living room

I´m in the last category
to make that happen I need
controlled, but not dead acoustics in large volume rooom
harmonics
dynamics and proper headroom
no postcard size soundstage
absolute quiet at 112db system, even at full volume open phono

after having been a dedicated audiophile and music lover for 45 years
an all out custom hornsystem driven by se electronics and NO DSP is what cuts it for me...

Senheis1,  I've never heard Vidar amp, but I bet you never heard AHB2 otherwise you wouldn't post this opinion.  Stating that AHB2 lacks microdynamics, texture, layering or has poor soundstage sounds like a joke.  Please notice that all professional reviews of AHB2 claim exactly the opposite, and there were dozens. 

Since you only posted negative user opinions, that you can always find for any amp, I suspect that you just like colored sound, but I don't understand why you feel defensive about it.  There is nothing wrong with it - it is only a matter of taste. 

You also called AHB2 sound "colored to the analytical/detailed side" and it shows that you have some agenda.  There is no such coloring, but there is a coloring on a side of warm sounding "musical" amps that can be easily shown in the presence of even harmonics they produce. 

I recently decided I wanted a new preamp.  I have a Bryston bp25 that I've had for 10+ years and a benchmark dac2 that I'm using directly into amps in another system.  After reading a ton the last few months I've re-concluded a decade later that the Bryston philosophy is pretty much the same as mine.  I think I'll probably end up getting a bp26 to put in the system that currently doesn't have a separate preamp.  I guess that puts me in camp 1.

I read a million reviews, comments, etc. and while I believe that other preamps are better in some ways, I decided that things like "greater soundstage depth" are most likely the result of colorations that will have negative aspects as well as positive.  I don't have the patience for trying to balance a variety of distortions/colorations to perfectly match my taste.  Just give me what's on the recording.  

@audiotroy

In our viewpoint if for example you go to a Wedding with a Live band full of brass instruments like horns, trumpts etc it hurts your ears, shouldn’t you want your system to sound like a mirror of what is really there? Isn’t the idea to bring you back to the recording itself?

So the sound you’re going for is a wedding band playing live in a horrible acoustic environment?

This is the second time you mentioned this pretty sad analogy (almost as bad as your bad tires on a Ferrari being anything like using stock power cable instead of a high end power cable analogy). If your Personas sound AT ALL fatiguing/harsh/bright, maybe you’re not the audio "doctor" you claim to be.

You CAN have incredible holography and resolution without losing musicality. The fact that you think it’s one or the other is sad. I had confidence in your ears and knowledge somewhat up to this point (aside from your silly cable beliefs, which are completely and utterly ignorant to even the most basic understanding of human brain biases -- which I mentioned before and you completely ignored), but when you use a WEDDING BAND as a way to describe and as an excuse for a system sounding harsh/bright/fatiguing/etc -- you’ve lost me.  Those horns/cymbals/whatever will not sound the same in a proper venue/environment.  And that's how the speakers should sound.  Not like a trumpet in a bathroom. 

You use an example of the "musical" setup in the other thread as being "NOT fatiguing." NO good set up should be fatiguing at any point (as long as you’re at a reasonable volume). You’re doing it wrong, "doctor." :)

Contuzzi,  your basic understanding of the audio arts is justified by your comments about cabling, power conditioners and believing that people who buy these products after experiencing these products are hypnotizing themselves into believing that these differences exist when obviously they don't. Of course these products work companies like Cardas, Wireworld, Nordost, and many others wouldn't be able to grow to the size they are if these products were not effective and din't produce real results. 

You also missed the post as written, we strive for our systems to have musicality and imaging as well as for a life like tonal quality. The reason for talking about imaging is for some people imaging isn't as important as tonality of course you can have both but certain types or designs may have excellent tonallity but may not image particularly well.

A good horn speaker will have incredible dynamics, most of them have a very pronounced honk in the midrange because of the horn loading, for some people that is not an issue for others it is.

The Wedding band analogy was to prove a point about how real instruments may sound, do you think we are investing thousands and thousands of dollars in matching equipment to make the Personas especially the 9H's sound great if it wasn't necessary?

We tune for reality, and tune the top end so the details and clarity are there without taking your head off. Cabling, power conditioning, roon tuning devices are just some of the tools that we use to make the systems sound the way we want it to sound like.  

The point made was that in reality brass instruments like horns and trumpets can sound aggressive, if you tune your system with warm speakers, warm electronics, etc you may have a system which is very pleasent to listen to but fails to capture any of the realism that live music has.

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ

Dave, It gets worse.  According to John Siau, technical director of Benchmark Media, overly warm sounding gear can make instruments with complex harmonic structure, like piano, to sound like out of tune.

Many people find natural sounding amps fatiguing, driving speaker with harsh metal dome tweeter.  They seek warm/dull sounding amp to fix it.

Believe it or not, somebody asked on this forum how to make sound warmer with less detail.  I recommended thick blanket over speakers.

Another person stated that the sound of the Benchmark DAC is too detailed - meaning each instruments can be identified.  He preferred all instrument together like sound blob.  We like what we got used to.  

Believe it or not, somebody asked on this forum how to make sound warmer with less detail. I recommended thick blanket over speakers.

If I hear a speaker that is putting out so much detail that I'm hearing things that I've never noticed before and that shouldn't be audible in the mix, it tells me that the speaker is doing something wrong...it's typically due to a boost in the area that I'm hearing too much of and a dip in other frequencies. 

Another person stated that the sound of the Benchmark DAC is too detailed - meaning each instruments can be identified. He preferred all instrument together like sound blob. We like what we got used to.

If you strip away the natural harmonics of music, you get a lean and very detailed sound. Some like it, some don't. To each their own.