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

The definition of musicality I’ve found is pretty simple:
Musicality - sensitivity to, knowledge of, or talent for music 

(and obviously that’s not what people are talking about)

Based on how people are speaking about "musicality" in this context, I can only conclude that what you’re referring to is accuracy in reproducing what's on the recorded medium, which is a function of how the stereo system is put together and more importantly the skill of the producer in capturing the sound that the artist wants.

Since hearing is extremely subjective and often limited as we grow older, there’s no way to measure what people hear in their brain, so the best you can do is pick what sounds good to you. If you like mustard on your dogs, you can’t explain why other than "it tastes good".   If you like a stereo setup, it’s "because it makes the music I like sound good".    

... The goal is to listen to how close your recording comes to the DIRECT TRANSFER that was made to YouTube ... 

There’s no such thing as a "direct transfer" to YouTube. Your use of ALLCAPS, italics, and boldface can’t change that simple fact. All YouTube audio relies on lossy compression which throws away high frequencies, dynamic range and resolution in a way similar to mp3 files.

One thing to consider is that many people prefer the sound of lossy audio files and that’s fine, as a preference. But it’s just silly to pretend that it’s anything other than that. It doesn’t really have anything to do with "high fidelity."

@kennymacc I complete agree. Audiophila at its core and how it is practiced by the majority of audiophiles is no different than Scientology. Pay more to attain a higher level and get closer to audio nirvana, only to find out that “at this level of performance it is all about preferences!”. It is about personal preferences at ALL levels of performance. If there is no superiority then it all boils down to differences!

It is about personal preferences at ALL levels of performance. If there is no superiority then it all boils down to differences!

Preferences within our budgets.

Sonic preferences not the same as increased performance.

@cleeds I can verify that YouTube uses AAC (LC)   Here’s the specs on AAC-LC:

AAC-LC128-192kps - Most YouTube videos use 128kps.  Keep in mind this is the "middle".  AAC itself is capable of significantly better sound quality than this, but not on a level of FLAC.

So the sound quality is roughly on a par with MP3’s from about 2010.  Acceptable for videos.

If someone has a link to the video, I can verify it’s the case.