@mahgister I’m not interested in judging your equipment or room. I’m simply interested in hearing the sound qualities you have been able to achieve. The resultant sound is the only thing that matters. You have done your homework now let’s hear how it has paid off. Just some simple recordings will do. Take one of the songs that I have posted an audio recording of my systems playing and record your system playing that same track from the listening chair location and position your recording device at the height of your ears in the middle of the chair. It’s that simple. This will give us a sample of the sound that the executed theories have developed into for you. You seem to know a lot. Knowledge is power so let’s hear what you have accomplished. I’m really curious to hear the results of your efforts.
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:
- ...
- 512 posts total
My dedicated acoustic room did not exist anymore i sold my house 3 years ago... This was my best album test recording when i tuned my room... The singers were walking turning their head singing around my listening position sometimes near my ears almost in my back and filling the room... listen to it on your system and i bet the singers will be in front of you near the speakers but not around you walking and singing ... You cannot record in your room this recreation of this excellent recording translating in three-Dimensional surround sound with a mic... You must be there to hear it ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR33bL5aNTk&list=PLnQJF3Qi_4_CvjtOvZypmfmC4ygxSxOgm&index=47
|
Part of the problem is that flaws in the speakers can sound like flaws in the room and vice versa. Alternatively, flaws in the speakers may accenuate flaws in the room. My room is pretty big (~5K cu ft) and I had associated a specific peak/sound with the room (e.g., 3:15). But I’ve found that with crossover modification, this is pretty much gone. Is it the speakers or the room? Actually, it is the speakers interacting with the room. I’ll have to do an "after" video when I get a chance. Just another advantage of doing a video. And this is how you can tell how a room or system alters the original. Just put one in each browser so you can instantaneously A/B them. (Well, not quite as this is a remastered version, but you get the idea.) Note that even though this is a live recording, it has far less room effect. You need to get them to the same perceived volume level. Almost forgot. This is a regular CD played on an Oppo-95 through a Yamaha RX-Z9 RECEIVER in "Pure Direct" mode over my speaker creation that uses a JBL 2241H 18", JBL 2251J 10", and modified Heil AMT. There is no eq or room correction, either electronic or physical, or sub being used, nor are there fancy wires or cables. The recording was made using a Nikon D750 DSLR approximately in the sweet spot. |
Interesting! But everyone here speak about their gear, recorded their system and think "good sound" is born from the gear pieces synergy or optimization instead of the room optimization or lack of optimization...Room acoustic is way more complex than GIK panels and potentially way more extraordinary for enhancing the sound experience... Myself i focused on the couple system/room experimenting in the past with my room acoustic optimization to improve my low cost system... None of the system/room i heard here impress me, they are good thats all, and they are better than the gear system i used in my acoustic room few years ago and this is so because they are no room acoustic control and it is easy to hear it in your videos...Sorry... Nowadays DSP is so advanced it can help a lot too (Choueiri filters) if i could i will use them someday, i will not anyway begin again with a mechanical distributed grid of tuned Helmholtz resonators...Too hard work to do...Fun the first time though...Choueiri filters used in an acoustically relatively well controlled room will do the job without distortions at all unlike my grid of resonators so good they were..
No gear design, dac,amp,speakers, crossover, even Choueiri filters, cannot replace minimal acoustic control of a room designed in function of specific system and specific ears... Small room acoustics is not the same as Great Hall room acoustics, the same principles but applied differently because size of enclosure and one pair of ears in one case and a collective in the other pose very different acoustic problem... This is ABC of audio ... Acoustics and psycho-acoustics rules audio engineering not the reverse...
|
- 512 posts total