Real or Surreal. Do you throw accuracy out the window for "better" sound?


I visited a friend recently who has an estimated $150,000 system. At first listen it sounded wonderful, airy, hyper detailed, with an excellent well delineated image, an audiophile's dream. Then we put on a jazz quartet album I am extremely familiar with, an excellent recording from the analog days. There was something wrong. On closing my eyes it stood out immediately. The cymbals were way out in front of everything. The drummer would have needed at least 10 foot arms to get to them. I had him put on a female vocalist I know and sure enough there was sibilance with her voice, same with violins. These are all signs that the systems frequency response is sloped upwards as the frequency rises resulting in more air and detail.  This is a system that sounds right at low volumes except my friend listens with gusto. This is like someone who watches TV with the color controls all the way up. 

I have always tried to recreate the live performance. Admittedly, this might not result in the most attractive sound. Most systems are seriously compromised in terms of bass power and output. Maybe this is a way of compensating. 

There is no right or wrong. This is purely a matter of preference accuracy be damn.  What would you rather, real or surreal?

128x128mijostyn

If to be an “audiophile” means that one has to completely dismiss the idea that there are aspects of the experience of listening to music (any art) that cannot be completely described via numbers/measurements (of any kind), then count me out. To believe otherwise is to miss the point of what, TO ME, being an audiophile really should be about: the quest for good sound that is in the service of the music. Not the other way around,

Music is expressed via sound. Music affects listeners in very personal ways. It is impossible to honestly discuss the sound of music in a way that is completely separated from the art. Art is a very personal experience. Our perceptions of the sound of music are always impacted, to some degree, by how the art in the sound is impacting us. It may seem like a quaint (at best) notion to some, but the science should always take a back seat to the art.

This is a long winded way of saying that I completely agree with mahgister’s basic premise that, ultimately, we have to let our ears decide.

frogman, you are a musician, so you got almost everything wrong. Music is first of all mathematics not art in a usual sense.

There is no music without sound. Sound is the foundation. Silence also sounds.

Neither sound is in the service of music nor music is in the service of sound. That one was beyond wrong. It's a different system.

You are romantic, and this one is good.

I have not heard of any SS amp unquestionably better than top Boulder. 

If I win a lottery I won't give anyone a cent. Even less likely will I subsidize any school. They will learn nothing there, anyway, waist of time and effort. I will buy Berlin Philharmonic along with the concert hall. I guess, for that I must win big lottery. I don't need London orchestra or any other.

Music does not have to be a sound.  It could be an idea in someone's mind (A STEVIE WONDER REFERENCE) or notes on a page.  Furthermore, in the right context, any sound can be music.  Even 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence is music.

You should be able to enjoy the music you like on pretty crappy systems.  Think table radios or car systems.  Music you like can still sound exciting on these systems.  Will you enjoy it more on a better system? Of course, but at some minimum level of fidelity you should be able to relate to what the artists are doing.

And yes, I agree education is a waist of time.

My analytical brain’s been driving my preference for too many years. I’m bored and not enjoying my HIFI.  Please tell me what speakers u fellas are using.