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

Very interesting discussion and people aren't arguing. I enjoyed this post.

 

This post highlights the differences in preferences amongst us.  Any opinions of gear by posters on a forum are a reflection of this. So, when someone asks "what should I buy? ", they get lots of different answers. Readers need to understand that. 

There is no "recorded truth" in playback systems each systems/room  with his own set of trade-off choices  of acoustic conditions and factors. Recording engineers dont record "truths" but a set of trade-off  acoustics choices facing any acoustic original event from a chosen creative perspectives. 
 
Then there is no "faithfull reproduction" among many different system/room/ears  of a recording which also picks some trade-off conditions and parameters...There exist only an imperfect translation...Reproduction is an engineering concept which hide the engineer trade-off choices about an event best described by the word "translation"  an acoustic translation if we speak about playback conditions.
 
Then when i seat in front of my system to listen music (not analysing my gear pieces/room)  i ask myself at which level am i immersed in the sound and music  not at what level my system is more or less accurate or  more or less musical.These questions were there only when i put and plug  my system in a non controlled room for no ears ...
 
 As i said "musicality versus accuracy" are more terms linked too the gear marketing choices not so much about acoustics science. There exist only relative  levels of musicality and accuracy and some distortion levels are necessary anyway for a good musical playback experience. All is in the timing and sound levels of the pressure zones distribution relative to a listener location.
 
I speak of "translation" instead of reproduction, because there is a source language (recording engineers trade-off) and a target language (system/room/ears of listeners trade-off choices) relative to an original unique not really reproducible  event  except from a chosen location and from an acoustics perspective...
 
 Acoustics and psycho-acoustics rules engineering here not the opposite...

@kirkwallace +1

I never have understood how any intelligent person (and there are plenty on this forum) could possibly think that listening to another's audio system via a recording no matter how well recorded could lead to a conclusion.

The speakers on my desk top are Altec Lansing 20-25 years old.  They do the job for a YT video, but evaluating sound quality of an unknown source.  FUGGEDABOUIT

Regards,

barts

@barts enough information is relayed and presented on these audio recordings about the sound qualities to make some inferences. Are you suggesting that language in texted words conveys more information about sound? Because that is all supposedly intellectual people want to do to describe the sound of their systems. This hobby is about sound and the resultant sound of our systems. Anyone can prose like a silver tongue devil about how delightful and accomplished their system sounds. It takes confidence and conviction to share, even a less than optimal sound recordings of our systems with others and subject it to judgement and scrutiny. Tell me a better way for someone remotely to discern the sound of a system than audio recordings of it from the listening chair location? It is a relative analysis and not an absolute one.

“How does one verify and validate the “recorded truth”?

@carlos269 

In my opinion, it’s an elusive pursuit. Rather than focusing on whether what we hear in our listening room perfectly mirrors the moment captured in the studio or on stage, we should listen with the intent of alignment, not absolute verification.

Ultimately, our audio system should reveal music with emotional honesty. When tone, timing and texture evoke the presence of real instruments and human intent, we begin to approach that recorded truth; even if we can never truly possess it.

The goal behind any well thought out audio system is to strike a balance between musicality and resolution, where emotion and detail coexist in harmony.

At the end of the day, it’s about finding that sweet spot where musicality flows effortlessly without sacrificing resolution.