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:
Wheel of Audio by CEDIA for evaluating audio system in private listening space
The core of this wheel of audio recommended by CEDIA/CTA contains nine criteria, which in turn can be categorized into Timber, Spatial Resolution and Dynamics. First of all, every criterion listed here can be considered a critical element in assessing the ’musicality’ of a reproduction system. The spatial *resolution* category also includes three attributes directly related to musicality. This strongly indicates that resolution does not conflict with or compromise musicality, contrary to what this thread claims. Several posts have already made that point quite clear. Second, to evaluate an audio system objectively through recordings, the fidelity of the aforementioned nine criteria must be preserved as much as possible. Isolating the room interaction of the recording environment is crucial and is recognized as a fundamental recording technique. Several people here have emphasized room interaction in an entirely misguided way. Consider this: why should the original recording be made in an acoustically treated space, yet the recording of the reproduction system need not be? If you want your system to be evaluated by an audience via YouTube, you must minimize other variables including room interaction. The recording equipment used by people purporting the theme here is very basic and fails to capture acceptable fidelity across several important criteria — spatial (cue) resolution and bass impact (hence dynamics), to name just a few. How can you possibly convey the true performance of your system to an audience through an already compressed platform? Ignoring advice to improve recording equipment and technique, while preaching about the importance of this approach and complaining about the audience’s unwillingness to cooperate, is like putting the cart before the horse — utterly absurd and laughable. Big vision but poor execution. Refusal to accept one’s limitations is biggest hurdle to achieving their goal. |
@theophile Just plain wrong! Read the thread. I’m only responding with answers. I post my audio recordings and the sound on them is really the only thing anyone here should care about, the rest is just additional information. Don’t turn to insults when you can no longer defend your position. |
@lanx0003 I believe that I have stated this a number of times but you don’t seem to grasp it so I’m going to repeat it for you one more time. No one has ever claimed that audio recordings, through iPhones, cameras, or even professional studio microphones are identical to the sound in the room in “absolute” terms. What I and others are claiming is that enough sound qualities are conveyed through these audio recordings to make some inferences and to allow for “relative” comparisons. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Why do you keep pushing the fact that audio recordings do not capture everything when that is known, not just home audio recordings of one’s home audio system at home but also of studio and live commercially produced recordings? Ask the people behind the Wheel Of Audio by CEDIA/CTA how well professional studio recordings capture spatial cues and dynamics. The spatial cues in commercial recordings are always artificial, as in synthetic man made, in multi-microphone sessions and dynamics are always compromised by compressors and limiters. A single X-Y or M-S microphone is better able to capture the true nature of these sound qualities and convey them with greater accuracy. If you take everything at face value you end up limiting yourself. Keep reading those articles and then ask yourself so what makes the commercially released audio recordings that I buy or stream any better than the minimalist audio recordings that I can make at home. Get back to me on what the CEDIA/CTA people respond to you regarding commercially produced and distributed audio recordings and their limitations. |
