Striking a balance between musicality and resolution

Musicality is a meaningless word inasmuch as "The Way I Like To Hear Music". It could encompass anything depending upon the individual.

The rock solid standard for truth in sound is being physically present in the same space as the performer listening to unamplified performing. Then we might compare the sound of being in the same space listening to the same performance with the assistance of microphones and amplification/transducers to that of the unamplified performance in that same space. 

That is one comprison.

Everything changes once the recording has been captured. We now assess the recording as an entirely different entity. Even if the recording is recorded and played back in the same space. In one instance the sound reaches our ears direct from the mouth/instruments with no intervening process. In the other instance after recording we listen to a different thing. Related to the inperson experience by being a capture of that, but no longer the same thing. An animal unto itself.

So we listen to recordings, but not in a standardised way. We listen on whatever device(s) we have to hand. We listen to a facsimile on facsimile decoders. The 'excitement' is on the facsimile. No facsimile decoding system adds excitement. The best a facsimile decoder can do is accurately convey the facsimile.

The value judgement of the facsimile decoder, whatever that is, will be ultimately subjective because at this point in time we don't have the absolute ability to interpret through instruments whether the facsimile reproduction system is absolutely accurate. Plus there is no one single verified accurate facsimile decoding system and room to use as a benchmark.

So here we all are muddling about with diverse equipment and diverse rooms listening to diverse facsimiles. Where is the scientific benchmark to make absolute assessments there?

We shall not get anywhere abandoning science but don't have a scientific answer to what is absolute accuracy in regard to facsimile decoding. We have measures we can make. We have auditions we can make. We haven't arrived at an absolute. So at this stage, bereft of an absolutely accurate playback system and absolutely accurate playbakc space, everything remains a compromise.

I think our ears are good enough to rule out the truly nasty playback options and good enough to indicate exceptional outstanding playback options. The wrench in the paradigm which throws all comparisons of playback options into meaninglessness is that we listen in different rooms to one another. Even if we had a standardised asbolute playback system and absolute standardised playback facsimiles, once they are utilised in diverse listening spaces, all standard listening results bacome specific to the specific space.

We cannot yet think in terms of absolutes with regard to replay of recordings. There's a gamut of standards in the recordings. There's a gamut of standards in replay systems and there's a gamut of rooms in which we place those systems.

We muddle onward. No-one is in possession of the truth. All are somewhere on a spectrum of less accurate to more accurate.

@theophile There is no “Absolute Sound” that can be verified, validated, and certified. The best that one could do is to compare the output of the source component to the output of the speakers and assess the accuracy there.

As for the room and acoustical environment, this is one of the biggest fallacies of the audiophile world and a complete misunderstanding of acoustics and lack of comprehension of the fact that our human brains have a built in sound arbitrator. To greatly overcome the room effect all one has to do is listen in the near-field.

I see unknowledgeable and misguided audiophiles spends some times hundred of thousands of dollars in bespoke custom acoustically “engineered” and  treated dedicated listening rooms not realizing that they are doing more harm than good; with the end result in most cases being over-damped and dead sounding rooms. BUT beyond that is the lack of knowledge and understanding by the so called “acousticians” and “acoustics engineers” that don’t realize that the frequencies that they are attenuating/absorbing, diffracting, and reflecting with the acoustical treatments do not only effect the frequencies in their calculations that they are attempting to target, without realizing and understanding that these same discrete frequencies serve as partial components of the more complex waveforms in frequency ranges that they were not attempting to effect.

In most cases these “acoustically engineered” room look beautiful but sound worst and more compromised than typical domestic rooms and acoustical environments. It is all about vanity without any real understanding of the science of acoustics and sound reproduction in acoustical spaces.

Then there are the guys that attempt to add treatment at the first reflection point on the side walls as if the sound coming from the speakers is a ray of light flrom a flashlight, not realizing that every frequency has a different first reflection point and it is dependent on the polar radiation pattern associated with the individual loudspeaker’s design.

As I often see, there is the blind leading the blind, a lot of clueless people with deep pockets not realizing that they are doing more harm than good to the sound of their systems. I could go on and on but I will stop here for now.

@carlos269 

I applaud your dedication to great sound and hope it's working out well for you.

@newton_john Thank you, but there is no hoping involved. I have posted audio recordings of three of my systems and they are what they are, there is nowhere to hide. This is what frightens most audiophiles who have made a sizable investment or who have made the effort…..to put the sound of their systems out here for others to hear, judge, scrutinize and get honest feedback. Who goes and listens to anyone else’s systems and tells the host that their system sounds lousy and underwhelming? Every guest offers their host a stellar review, at least in person, it is common courtesy. It takes courage to put it out there and showcase what you have achieved and accomplished. And that is why everyone runs to the forums to tell everyone else how great the new component they bought sounds, show beautiful pictures, and expressed how wonderful their systems sounds because it is easy to put it in words and writing about it, but when you ask the proud audiophiles to share some audio recordings of their wonderful systems to showcase what they have accomplished they will give you a ton of excuses why they cannot or will not. The audio recordings are what they are and there is nowhere to hide.

You probably never had a nearfield listening room to compare with regular one...

I had one and the other...

Nearfield listening minimize some aspects of reflections but never eliminate them...

It is something i experienced personally ...

It is something very well known...

Acoustics and psycho-acoustics  concepts rules audio engineering and even physics in sound experience...

A myth in audio an enduring one is the fact that some think that the gear pieces design alone determine S.Q.

It is totally false, acoustics and psycho-acoustics determine what we hear...

«The "near field" is a property of the ROOM, not the speaker. This graph and explanation come from the book "Architectural Acoustics"»:

https://digistar.cl/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=547

There is no “Absolute Sound” that can be verified, validated, and certified. The best that one could do is to compare the output of the source component to the output of the speakers and assess the accuracy there.

As for the room and acoustical environment, this is one of the biggest fallacies of the audiophile world and a complete misunderstanding of acoustics and lack of comprehension of the fact that our human brains have a built in sound arbitrator. To greatly overcome the room effect all one has to do is listen in the near-field.