Striking a balance between musicality and resolution


As my years and experience in this hobby continue to grow I notice a divergence between those seeking extreme resolution and detail from their music reproduction systems and those in search of maximum musicality.

In theory, high-end audio systems should provide more than garden variety stereo systems. In my view that means more detail and information should be heard from a high-end music reproduction system than one hears from ordinary HiFi stereo systems set ups. BUT is there such thing as too much resolution and detail in a stereo system’s sound presentation?

Some people feel that a less detailed presentation that is easier for your brain to process has better flow and provides more enjoyable listening.

So there is the dichotomy. Should one pay more to hear less? Can a frequency response performance that is curtailed at both frequency extremes be desired and praised?

Those that seek a “more musical” presentation usually point to their belief that that is how they hear live un-amplified acoustic music in the real world. In nature, high frequencies attenuate and decay with distance from the source and sound waves get absorbed, diffracted, reflected, and diffused by the environmental factors and landscapes; so they are not wrong in stating that in the real world the sound of music is less detailed and extended. The issue is that when we listen to our music reproduction systems at home we are not listening to live un-amplified music in a concert venue, but rather professionally produced audio recordings typically recorded with close-microphones techniques.

So the question is, do we want our systems to reproduce the sound on the commercial audio recordings accurately or does one want hear the sound the way one thinks that it should sound?

Lucky for me, I have enough systems at home that I have been able to design, set up, and tune them for different targeted resultant sound, sound presentation, and sound qualities. For instance, my OKTAN6 ultimate horn system is a dissecting microscope, my Pinnacle horn system aims at extreme musicality, and my WAAR reference system is a chameleon, which can be adjusted to sound exactly how you want it to sound in real-time.

My “test-bed” system takes on the sound character and sound qualities of the components in use and it is excellent for evaluating what new components have to offer or bring to the table in terms of sound qualities. But with the Acapella TW-1S ION plasma super-tweeters extending the high frequencies, the TBI Emperor subwoofers extending the low frequencies, and the highly detailed & nuanced Digital Audio Denmark AX24 DSD dac streaming HQPLAYER as the source, the “Test Bed” system is a highly resolving system.

As with everything else in life, is there a happy medium or compromise that gives you the best of those worlds? I believe that there is and that great music reproduction systems can be tuned to strike a balance between musicality and resolution. If one listens to the evolution of my OKTAN6 ultimate horn system for instance you can hear that the fine tuning is driving the sound in that direction.

So during last night’s listening session I adjusted the sound of my “Test Bed” system to a more musical sound presentation. The “Test Bed” system is always in flux so it allows me to experiment, explore, tweak, tune, and have fun with it.

Here is an audio recording from last night’s listening session that captures the revised sound presentation and conveys the sound qualities that exemplify a more organic sound versus a more delineated & resolved sound presentation:
 

The Way It Goes

 

carlos269

Lots of variables.

A very high resolving system can sound like I'm listening to a really good stereo instead of live music. It can be too edgy for my taste. Everyone has their own set of preferences.

Hearing ability/loss can have a huge influence on the sound signature. However, even though my aging ears suffer from a normal high frequency loss I still don't like overly revealing systems. My 40 year old son believes the goal is to get the highest resolution possible and for me is too much.

Some people listen to the system more than they listen to the music. To each their own and should build a system on their own likes and dislikes. What ever floats your boat.

Simple. If someone took the time to put something onto a recording, I want to be able to hear it.  I find there is no  tradeoff with  “Musicality” necessarily involved. 
 

How can one even claim to seek the best sound quality possible otherwise?  Anyone can like what they hear. Nothing special about that.  Most people are that way. 

@gdaddy1 ​​​​​@mapman  Your two responses exemplify the dichotomy that I referred to in my original post.

There are many who prefer a midrange centric or “low sonic center of gravity” sound. Some have even developed names for this type of sound, like “Natural Sound” and other descriptors.

So how low in resolution does one have to go to achieve the so called “Natural Sound”?

Once I Loved (“Natural Sound”)

Once I Loved (OKTAN6)

It’s a moving target based on an individual’s taste/hearing.  One person’s “musical” or “natural” could easily be another’s “harsh” or “veiled.”  I think you’ve hit on what is the “art” of becoming a happy audiophile, which is identifying and finding that optimal balance between detail and musicality.  

I completely agree with your premise and analysis. I have had many iterations of my systems over the years and have inadvertently moved too detailed, too lean and analytical... too revealing. As I have said elsewhere I finally spent over a decade researching the real thing... 7th row center seats at the symphony for a decade... other venues. I realize there are different camps of components and gradually upgraded my systems to reproduce the "real thing" instead of what I call "sound spectacular".

I look at details versus musicality a little differently. A good "real thing" system does not have less details over a "highly detailed system", but it keeps them in appropriate proportion. My system has all the details... they are not "over amplified". So you can still hear the violinist move her foot... but now, you have to stain to hear it... just as you would have to if you were in the music hall. It is getting the proportions right. I remember listening to White Room at a friends house once and being blown away that the cymbals were a solo instrument! They are not. I listened to the same recording on my system (carefully constructed to accurately reproduce music) and they were in the background by the drums where they should be. 

So, it is a question of what are the manufactures trying to do. Companies like Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Sonus Faber, VAC and a few others are dedicated to the accurate whole reproduction of music (in 3D space)... with all instruments in proportion to what is on the recording... and would be in real life. Then there are companies that carefully reproduce each sound in 3d space emphasizing all the details and revealing all. These can be amazing to listen to... but do not sound like you are sitting where the microphones were placed... in my example, in the symphony. I sat about three rows back and 12' below the microphones used to record the symphony when it played and have those recordings... some of which I was at during recording.