I think there is yet another factor that may have already been touched upon in this blog- I have not read every post. The other factor is that at a live performance we are able to see music being produced which I think adds to the realism of the sound whether it is well or not well miked. We can see what instrument is being played and we therefore instantly form the judgement that that is how it is supposed to sound whether musically or not. We don't have to strive to understand and reproduce the performance as it is supposed to sound. I have been to performances that really weren't good musically and I have been to performances that were very musical. Being at the live performance we don't have to adjust for musicality or resolution and I think trying to determine how a performance that we have not attended should sound on our home systems is where the demon lives.
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
@pmiller115 Yes, agree, all good points specially the visual contributions. @toddalin Yes, crossover adjustments to address the resultant sound of the system as opposed to the sound of the speakers is certainly a valid and effective approach to adjusting the resultant sound of the system. Just have to make sure that the drivers can handle the adjustments without damage or strain and to adjust the phase of the drivers’ outputs to produce the desired spectral contour.
|
This is an excellent, thought-provoking topic, and one close to my heart. There is indeed a schism between the resolutiion-above-all-else crowd and the musicality-above-all else. FWIW, I’m in the latter camp. The OP’s salient question: "BUT is there such thing as too much resolution and detail in a stereo system’s sound presentation?" Yes, absolutely. Look at it this way: any audio system, either a mix ’n’ match assemblage costing $2-$3 grand, or a whopper mansion system costing $500K, can’t touch live music in terms of dynamics & power. All audio is a subset of real music played in real spaces. Given that, an over-emphasis on "detail," the leading edge of notes, transients, and so on, becomes an amusical (ie, unlike music) characteristic. It annoys my ears and always has, but a lot of people chase that sound and spend bushels of dollars on it. I always go in the other direction: I chase audio that gives me a big, juicy kiss of musical realism. It’s not pure resolution I’m after; it’s a slice of the low frequency punch, resonance and spatial quality of real music that I chase. That might mean tubes, or it might mean solid state "voiced" to sound more like music than a flat, forensic Venn diagram of music And when it comes to digital audio, it definitely means multibit or (even better) non-oversampling tech that restores some of the body of reproduced music, body that is often robbed by delta-sigma chips. I’ve heard so much music live, all genres, including lots of classical and jazz, as well as power rock from my earlier days. Particularly in classical and jazz, which tend to be minimally miked, I’m never aware of "resolution," "detail," "plankton," any of the audiophile buzzwords. IRL "detail" encompasses dynamics, reverberation, resonance, spatial qualities, tonality, and the articulation of musical notes played on real instruments. In music IRL, detail cannot be separated from all the rest (unlike audio, in which detail can be prioritized above all the rest).. I count myself very lucky to have found a few components over the years that give me a reasonably good approximation of real music played in real places. |
@desktopguy Care to share an audio recording of your system playing back one of the songs shared on this thread so that we can hear the musicality that you are describing, that you have been able to achieve with your system? It sounds like a great sounding system and it would add more substance to your comments if we can listen to it. |
This might be interesting to core a’philes. My Chord Hugo2 DAC is >3 times resolution than my WT-95 (modded Oppo bdp-95). I modded Hugo2 too for the best sound it can. Videos of of WT-95 internal DAC and Hugo2 DAC below. My point here is quality of voices. The Katie’s voice with WT-22 is clean, pure, and deep. Hogo2’s voice is hard, murky, and can’t see deep. Alex/Wavetouch audio |
- 512 posts total