"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.
Two Type of sound and listener preference are there more?
In our thirty years of professional audio system design and setup, we keep on running into two distinctly different types of sound and listeners.
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.
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."
Are there more then this as two distincly different camps?
We favor the real is good and not real is not good philosophy.
Some people who talk about Musicaility complain when a sytem sounds bright with bright music.
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?
Please discuss, you can cite examples of products or systems but keep to the topic of sound and nothing else.
Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ
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.
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."
Are there more then this as two distincly different camps?
We favor the real is good and not real is not good philosophy.
Some people who talk about Musicaility complain when a sytem sounds bright with bright music.
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?
Please discuss, you can cite examples of products or systems but keep to the topic of sound and nothing else.
Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ