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:
That clearly stamps your interests as non-classical! It also means you have no independent reference against which to judge sound quality. There is no contradiction between high resolution and musicality in my world of classical music recorded in real-world venues |
um, sorry to have to say this Mr Carlos, but i am continually baffled by any so called "audiophile" type people that CAN PUT ANY CREDENCE INTO EVALUATING ANY AUDIO SIGNAL ONLINE with any type of website, utube whatever....are u serious?,, we all take great pains and efforts to build proper systems for 2-channel music reproduction...invest in sometimes thousands of dollars for components, acoustic treatments, proper power situations, requisite quality cabling etc, and you want to evaluate this with an online amplifier and speaker reproduction of someone's system?!!!.... um, what am i missing here, i'm a lurker mainly, not a poster, and while i really respect and enjoy and learn from ghdprentices's and audphile's informative posts, i feel compelled to say that any so called audiophile that evaluates ANYTHING by listening to their computer and making any valid conclusions about any quality audio equipment is among the most ridiculous and bizarre manifestations of human intelligence i've ever heard,,,.ummm, will u please think about what your evaluating and trying to conclude?... stating some ridiculous evaluation of an audio signal reproduced on a crap at best speaker/amp on a computer?!!!.....please, lets be real....asking someone to post a recording of whatever from and on whatever to evaluate on a computer is absolutely absurd....sorry for my attack here, but enough with this listening to online videos to evaluate high quality audio equipment here, we're supposed to be at least a little more than bluetooth type sounds great and works type people so what more do u need....um, how old are u anyway?...we're all here for high fidelity audio reproduction that can never ever be evaluated or discerned or appreciated by listening to anything via a computer amp and speaker....please no insult intended but i am sick and tired of this here... i'll take it in the other forums like avs forum, or asr, as they are for the most part high end 2-channel deniers that think dsp's can fix all their problems....please, take your opinions and posts there if u think that u can actually make any type of audio system quality decision based on anything u hear online,....sorry, ridiculous, and putting this nice gentleman on the spot to send you a file for you to evaluate here i find incredibly insulting not only to ghdprentice, but to the whole audiogon community....i assume there are several youtube "audiophile" type sites....if u can't be more realistic then please go there and proffer your potentially absurd opinions.....i apologize to any i may have insulted, but near death experiences changes you and one thing i am so tired of in this somewhat internet influence know it all society these days is the assumption that everyone that is willing to just do some online research can know it all and engage in discourse with actual people that do know a lot and demand something like this to help prove their point?!?!... sorry don't get it.....ghdprentice....ignore this nonsense.....audphile and ghprentice....thanks for your continued informative posts .... again, sorry but just angry now at this youtube absurdity that prevails today...what the heck has happened to us that we are so shallow and gullible, .making conclusions on thousand dollar audio gear while listening ON YOUR COMPUTER....um, ok, repeating myself here,...just mystified that any of the more informed people here would even tolerate and read this utter nonsense....am i the only one that takes umbrange here?...ok, i'm done now, flame away at me, don't really care if u do, but hopefully some folks here will relate with my frustrations at the absurdity of concluding audio equipment comparisons based on computer listening...would u evaluate how a bmw handles on a computer simulation?....what's the difference with audio gear?...and hey alex wavetouch, listening with a cellphone?!...and you are supposedly a high end manufacturer!?,...nothing personal, but do us all a favor and go sell your stuff elsewhere and quit insulting all of our collective intelligences!...give it a rest please..best of luck with your gear and sales, but, um, u don't know it all an your opinions are mostly absurd and blatantly stated....wow, glad to get that off my chest before.... |
I have the impression because of these false alternative between resolution and musicality as false choices and because of the focus on the gear frequencies response instead of the acoustics experience and concepts and parameters that many people dont realize that timbre perception and spatial cues are not separable even if we can distinguishes between them. The listener’s location and the surrounding environment act on the perception of timbre because the same sound source will produce different spectral and temporal cues depending on its position relative to the listener and the reflections in the room. A good playback experience is able to translate the acoustical trading choices of the recording engineer into the acoustical trading choices of the listener system/room design and ears. This translation must gave us the experience of tonal timbre with his spatial cues and information. This translation is not about musicality or resolution of the gear system or of the mere recording alone , it is about all parameters implied: recording choices, system/room/ears/location. An experience is musically satisfying, nevermind his resolution level in details if this resolution is at a minimal necessary threshold, if our brain can recreate a 3-D perception of each instruments ideally surrounding the listener or including him at least (immersiveness or listener envelopment ).
Then not only frequencies response but time and timing, and sound pressure levels and ears measures, and HRTF matter... We can analogically and mechanically modify our room and our listening location, or we can use and add also DSP with or without ears and head measures, to modify our system/room/location; the goal is not only timbre perception as musicality but enough resolution in frequencies and in times cues to recreate a 3-D spatial immersion.
By the way it goes without saying that we cannot judge a system by listening to it on youtube or from a cellphone. Why? Because sound experience is not about transmission of frequencies through medium as cellphone, youtube or dac/amp/speakers but about the way a listener located in a room perceive timbre tonality as a 3-D experience... Acoustics rules engineering, not the reverse and musicality dont reduce to sound as bits but imply a specific listener in specific location... |
You’ve missed the point. When I say "Direct Transfer" I am referring to YouTube putting the music directly to their site rather than listening to a recording of it it played back on someone’s stereo trying to reproduce it..., which is all most people ever listen to and then complain that it doesn’t sound natural/real/whatever. It should sound like the "Direct Transfer" whatever that sounds like. For example, if the Direct Transfer is thin on bass, and has a midrange peak on your playback system, the subject equipment’s recording should be similarly thin with a similar peak, etc. Like I said, you really want to use a good sound system for playback, but it need not be the system being demoed in the video. Sure when YouTube directly transfers the music to their site, they subject it to compression whatnot. BUT, when you submit a video, it is subject to the same whatnot, so should still sound the same. If it doesn’t, it’s because it has been changed somewhere along the way, via the room or the equipment (including the recording equipment), and any change is a distortion. |
Some of us do have reference recordings made chasing original acoustic events in reverberant space witness real time. A time honored path where the first distortion is microphone choice, quickly followed by placement. For more removed recordings, I think @lalitk nailed it. For those seeking insight into an original event w fewer choices but an insane level of insight into what your room and system can do get a ZOOm audios 6 recorder and hire a cello player to visit your listening room. :0 BTW the comment about modern microphones was idiocy…See Royer or AEA or better yet buy and use them….. |
