1. Home
  2. amps-preamps
  3. 196294-301

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
kerrybh
680 posts
 

On that we agree.

Obviously, build quality, service, etc., are considerations but ultimately reaching the sound that brings the most enjoyment for the resources available is the goal. Everyone has different circumstances-personal preference, room, budget, WAF that goes into the mix. Also, folks have a different point at which "this good is good enough."

Just a few of the variables, but the goal is, as you say, to get the composite sound quality that best suits that person, within the restrictions imposed by all these variables. 

thaluza's avatar
thaluza
303 posts
 

A good "real thing" system does not have less details over a "highly detailed system", but it keeps them in appropriate proportion.
 

@ghdprentice Proportionality is a great way to describe the goal that I want to achieve. I don’t want to hear cymbals being struck 10 feet in front of the singer by a pair of 30 foot arms. I don’t want miniaturized image sizes, which is something I experienced with a “Class A+” dac. I don’t want performers and instruments unnaturally separated from each other as if they were recorded in separate zip codes. I usually don’t listen as a forensic scientist. Plenty of people like to dissect recordings, and that’s a perfectly valid way to listen , but I suspect my priorities are more in line with yours.

bipod72
179 posts
 

For my own person walk along the path of hi-fi, it has been to slowly build up a decent quality hi-fi system that sounds musical and is clean. For me, having a system that plays any music cleanly, revealing nuances and subtleties in recordings I have missed previously, yet I can sit and listen to for hours without fatigue, is my goal. I'll never have the means to spend tons of money on high-end equipment so upgrades happen in steps to what I can reasonably afford and will get me closer to having a musically clean system. I have lo-fi recordings, original pressings, and the like in my personal collection that were never meant to be audiophile catnip or listened to analytically. They're "play and enjoy the music" type recordings. I have other artists in my collection whose music is deeply layered, with lots of nuance, that require closer listening while still allowing me to enjoy the music. Some geared towards listening to only with headphones, while others are "turn up the volume" and tap your toes and let the kids dance around. At my ripe old age of 53, I'm rarely listening to music on my speakers above 75lb for long listening sessions. Oftentimes, I turn to headphones for that and have realized that an overly analytical system isn't appealing to my listening habits. I'm very much a music-first hi-fi person, and my modest system reflects that. One day...when I'm close to retirement and the kids are off the payroll, I plan to invest in an end-game, next-level system that is revealing and musical. And certainly higher-end than what I have now. 

kennymacc
723 posts
 

@carlos269 What you say is so true.  My belief is that, in high-end audio, the belief that we should all be in constant and continuous search for the so-called "Absolute Sound" is nothing more than an oxymoron and a clever industry sales gimmick,  designed to keep audiophiles chasing our tails.  Perpetrated mostly by high-end audio magazine reviewers and industry reps, the goal is to entice the audiophile to be on a constant merry-go-round of buying new audio equipment in the belief that what they already have is never good enough to meet the unattainable standard of what they perceive as "The Absolute Sound."  Oh, but there is such a thing as The Absolute Sound, and like opinions, everyone has one LOL!!!  Happy listening.        

ghdprentice's avatar
ghdprentice
9,448 posts
 

@kennymacc "...In over 30 years in the hobby, not once have I ever sat down in front of any of my audio systems and asked myself. I wonder how accurately or faithfully this sounds relative to the original commercial studio recording or, to a live, or a recorded live musical event."

I probably did not for the first 25 years during my time pursuing high end audio. However, I found that improving my system would often take me down a dead end... for instance: where one genre sounded better at the expense of all others. Then, detaisl became astonishing... but at the expense of the soul... the emotional connections to the music. 

I realized I needed an empirical ruler. I realized rock and electronic generated music could not perform that function; electronically generated and manipulated. But that acoustic instrumentation could... and that if I got that right then all others must be as close to perfect as possible.

So I started to listen to every instrument I could... put my head next to a piano... and across the room, then the 10 years at the symphony. I would listen as if it was a system... hundreds of concerts and jazz ensembles. I remember the first time going to the symphony and listening to it as if it were a system. What an eye (ear) opener! My system didn't sound anything like that.

I found the closer I got to the real thing, the better all genre sounded not just one. Each step would result in a greater emotional connection, until I found it almost impossible to listen to my system... the music is too compelling. The system will not hold my interest... transient of a bass note, or image edge... or decay of bass note.  I get sucked into the musical experience and forget about the system. When I got there, I realized I was done... I was there. 

More to discover