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
carlos269's avatar
carlos269 OP
483 posts
 

@kevemaher Back when I was starting out in the audiophile world I also chased a flat in-room frequency response, first with Behringer 8024, 2496 and later with some SigTech units. I can tell you that there is not much to like about a flat frequency  response and you should know this as someone with a physics degree and background. As I approached flatness it became obvious to me. The reason is because of the Fletcher-Munson effect. Our hearing is not linear in sensitivity when it comes to frequencies, the sensitivity is a function of sound pressure level.

Static EQ, whether in the time domain or in convolution is also not good either as it is applied without discrimination. The only filtering that is useful is dynamic filtering. 

atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
12,428 posts
 

@carlos269 I don't see how any of our interaction has been bad for me. You might think so but we are all entitled to our opinions. 

Your description about mastering isn't entirely accurate. For example if a producer is savvy and wants the best version of the LP release, he will send the LP mastering engineer a digital file that has no DSP except for perhaps normalization. OTOH if the mastering engineer is savvy he might request that from the producers so he can turn out a better product.

I've had both happen; anytime we mastered an LP we requested the least amount of DSP to get the best sound possible. 

(My LP mastering system was a Scully lathe with Westerex 3D cutter head, driven by modified Westerex 1700 series mastering electronics. I had to rebuild the lathe and refurbish the electronics; I had to get in pretty deep.) 

So the commercial release may or may not be that which you see on streaming services, and if it is from the actual commercial release it may not be the same as that which was used for the creation of the LP. That depends a lot on where they got the source file. Sometimes you see high resolution files that are actually just 16 bit but reprocessed to look like something more. Its a bit of the Wild West although it has been settling down in recent years.

The LP can be different in that there may be less or no EQ and less limiting and compression, because there is no expectation the end result will be played in a car. IOW that might be the best sounding version, but usually isn't something you can stream.  

Now what you do with the file when you get home is up to you. There are plenty of people that miss the tone controls that were everywhere decades ago. So regarding your question about HQPLAYER, my answer is, using the text of your question, you're not improving the source material but you may be liking what you did to it. There is a distinction but its unimportant since the end goal is to enjoy the hobby in whatever way you see fit. 

kevemaher's avatar
kevemaher
427 posts
 

@carlos269 

I have discovered that "flat" FR does not sound good. But I had to try that first in order to determine how I'd like the sound to be altered. Seems to me that starting with an already colored sound can create unexpected biases.

I have the "non-flat" FR that my ears and mind both crave. I check it once a month to determine if it is the same. I've found that it changes with speaker position (of course) and positions of other objects in the room. These things change all the time.

I agree that my GEQ is probably not the best tool for the task. It is the tool that I found to be the most effective in creating the sound I like.

I've done some measurements on my two GEQs. I have a Rane ME 60 and a dBx 1231. I've tested both for FR, noise, and distortion. The values were way below other components in my system (all harmonics at  approx -95 dBV). Certainly there are many other parameters that I haven't tested and most likely can't for lack or equipment. I've listened and measured with and without EQ and found no audible difference except for the altered FR. I do not crank the gain way up on nulls. It does no good. And it creates so much distortion that it was quite visible in the REW data. Could I hear it? No, I couldn't. It is very narrow in frequency corresponding to the slider chosen. I adjust very carefully in the vicinity around nulls and accept the result I am able to achieve even if not optimal. 

 

 

 

lanx0003
1,982 posts
 

@toddalin  If readily available, could you show the imp./phase angle vs freq. plot and SPL.  Thx.  

kevemaher's avatar
kevemaher
427 posts
 

@lanx0003 

Hi, how did you arrive at so many capacitors and resistors of nearly the same values in parallel? I can understand bypass caps, but unless I'm totally missing something that's not the implementation.

In your circuit, in a few locations, several caps in parallel can be replaced by a single one of the calculated value for parallel (or series) passive components.

What am I missing?

More to discover