I always find discussions of versions of this topic pretty interesting, mainly because it is interesting to me to hear how people with huge amounts of experience, who have dedicated thousands of hours deciding what sound they like and what gear can best create it in their rooms describe the sounds of equipment that they like. But I am lost by the OP’s request to have @ghdprentice upload a recording of his system. Am i missing something here? Even if brother Prentice had a suite of the highest quality professional recording equipment and the time, desire and ability to upload a link to a recording at 192kHz/24-bit (or better) quality, wouldn’t its sound be that of whatever gear we or the OP played it back on? Isn’t that the whole topic under discussion?
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:
- ...
- 512 posts total
@kirkwallace You know what I find interesting is that we accept commercial audio recordings as the basis for this hobby and take them as accurate records of the recording session, but we dismiss audio recordings of our on system. With a background in physics and electrical engineering and haven’t spent seven years immersed in the high-end mastering studio world, I can tell you that you underestimate how much information those recordings of our systems can provide and covey. If you value minimalist recording techniques then the audio recording of our home systems from the listening chair position is as minimalist as it gets. Have you ever recorded your system? I do all the time, I have included some audio recordings of a couple of my systems in the links above. I find these audio recordings representative of the sound in the room. I think that it is a crutch and excuses. We all spend a lot of money on our systems and it leaves me dumbfounded how many lack the confidence and conviction to make a simple audio recording of their system from the listening position and share it with others. What are you afraid of? Please share an audio recording of your system. Step up and let us hear what you have been able to achieve. |
I would have to say I get every type of sound reproduction being discussed from the same system. As the source material, IMHO, plays the largest part on how any recording will sound. Sometimes I can believe I'm in an intimate club and the trio is live on stage in front of me. Other recordings simply don't bring this and no amount or equipment is going to change that fact. Would I ever want a less resolving system? NO. would I prefer that all recordings could meet the highest standards? YES. |
@uncleang I’m not surprised with your sister in law’s experience. It is all relative after all. There are some with systems with a 10-12KHz high frequency extension that call it “Natural Sound”. If you are also old enough and you have lost your high frequency hearing then you will not miss that last octave. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it……. |
@carlos269 You ask, " Do we want our systems to reproduce the sound of the commercial audio recordings accurately or does one want to hear the sound the way one thinks it should sound?" The question should be, what did the commercial audio recording really sound like straight from the recording studio, and how do you know what mindset the recording engineers at the recording studio had when recording? Was the goal to produce a more musical recording or a more accurate recording? On top of that, all commercial recordings have to be played back through some kind of source/audio system. All audio systems sound different from one to another, and they all alter the sound of the original recording in to some degree. So what is accuracy or a more musical presentation to the original commercial recording? Now, since we have no way of knowing what the original commercial recording really sounds like, unless you were there in the recording studio when it was recorded (and still, it will sound different on your audio system than it did at the studio), IMHO, striking a balance between accuracy or a more musical presentation to the original commercial recording at home on our home audio systems is purely subjective. So, in conclusion, you don’t have a choice but to listen to the original commercial recording the way you think it should sound LOL!!! Happy listening.
|
- 512 posts total