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

@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.

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.

I’m inclined to agree, but especially so when the recording is posted to YouTube as a video. That means that the highs have been stripped completely, the dynamic range limited and all kinds of information thrown away as part of YouTube’s lossy audio compression scheme. That’s like listening to mp3 files, which is absolutely not my idea of hi-fi or fun. At all.

Of course it’s a harmless exercise to post YT videos. I just think it’s odd how some defend it as a way to ascertain how a system sounds. Not many people here want their system to sound like an mp3 file. It’s antithetical to the whole audiophile premise.

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

Make your own recordings of live music. It may not deliver "truth," but it will get you closer than watching YouTube videos.

@barts +1

@lalitk I think you described as well as anyone can what most of us seek in terms of balance. There are many ways to get there and innumerable variables. 

@cleeds  I find your response both interesting and curious as you begin by be inclined to invalidate home audio recordings from the listening chair location chair position and then continue by encouraging me to make my own recordings to find “recorded truth”.

it seems that many of the issue people have is with YouTube. Have you ever compared an audio recording, of any kind, before and after uploading to YouTube? What differences do you discern between the original native audio recording and the one on YouTube when listen to both through the same playback device/chain?