@theophile Take YouTube out of it if it is such an issue for you. Post a WAV file. You will not because you are not confident enough to expose to others what your system sounds like. All a bunch of BS excuses. I post the audio recordings of my systems and they are what they are, they speak for themselves and I don’t need to put any disclaimers. If I can do it why can’t you? What are you and others afraid of? You get to listen to the audio recording before you post it. You determine for yourself if the audio recording is representative of the sound in the room or not. It befuddles me how some can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in their systems and yet are not confident enough to showcase the sound of those systems. You would figure that these high cost systems would sound great even if recorded by a portable recorder. It’s not about YouTube, it’s not about all the variables, it is all about confidence…..or the lack of it!
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
I think I’m getting a grasp on where the OP is coming from and why there seems some sort of disconnect. The OP is making his observations and conclusions based with the realm of his own horn + tubes system, while I think in terms of available external components from different brand/models to elevate my audio chain. Solid State amplification is usually highly detailed but can be clinical/uninvolving to warmer (GanFet, First Watt, sliding class A…) and engaging especially for top SS electronics. Also, I have cartridges that are detailed VDH, Lyra, and musical Koetsu. I also have SPUs which may be considered musical. But these did not fit into the OP’s musical vs detailed. I’m still perplexed that the OP still accepts that a YouTube video can honestly reflect the Sonics of a home system. We spend a lot of time and effort on our system Sonics. Adding additional recording+playback with various typically non-professional setup and tools I’d expect Sonics to suffer or at least not truly reflective of in room Sonics. |
Dear @carlos269 : Sorry to disturb you again. I think that that 6 in the Oktan is for the six ways you mentioned.
Now, in any system the more " elusive " frequency range to reproduce with applomb/rigth is the low bass. How you are dealing say from 16hz to 25hz, MUSIC belongs ( its foundation ) to the low bass and for me as better low bass management as better the room/system performance levels. How do you deal with? TBI I don't think because you told Oktan6 is full horn loaded and your " star ".
Thank's in advance, R. |
@kennyc Perhaps it comes down to the fact that some of us use the audio recordings as a tool and have developed skills and methods of extracting value from them, while others just don’t have or posses the skills or imagination to get anything worthwhile from the audio recordings. One of my favorite tools was developed from military software technology, techniques, filtering, and algorithms used for detection and surveillance of submarines out in the vast ocean. One can chose to limit themselves by what is presented at face value or try to flex one’s head to see how you can extract information or value from audio recordings embedded in videos on YouTube. |
I've clearly misunderstood your post describibg that it is one's ears at the listening position that the most important thing. This is of course true. It is the individual components that created the sound. The source material, the physical layout of the room, the electronics, the speakers, etc... every last thing that's in the listening room. Why not "optimize" each and every of these components? The goal is as you've stated. The performances of each component combine to create the desired sound at the listening position. If so the called "optimization" worsens the sound, then get rid of it or change it. I don't know anything about the entire tape to final medium process. I am extremely comfortable with developing an approach, implementing it, and making necessary changes as product development continues. All toward creating a final product. R&D. Please help me better understand your viewpoint. My understanding of what you wrote may be way off base. Thanks. |
- 512 posts total