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:
I couldn’t edit my previous post but my Wilson Audio WAMM subwoofer towers that I use in my WAAR reference system are actually Series VII (7) and made of the “X” composite material, unlike previous series which were made from MDF. Here you can see them: Wilson Audio WAMM Series VII in WAAR reference system And here you can hear them in action: St. John’s Night on Bald Mountain
|
| Post removed |
"who determines which end result is better? More valid? More accurate? More faithful to the original? And how is that confirmed and validated?"
I contend that this is determined by how close the subject system sounds to the YouTube "line feed" where the disk is recorded directly to YouTube. And it doesn't matter so much what you listen back on, so long as it is of quality, because you are listening for "differences" and not trying to determine what the subject system actually "sounds" like. Of course there is no room involved in the line feed, but then any room modifications are a distortion of the original signal. One may prefer this distortion, but that's what it is. And the line feed won't have artifacts like floor bounce, but again, that is a distortion. So knowing where the "distortions" lie, we are better able to deal with them. But if you don't know of their existence... |
@toddalin This is where I differ from you and @mihorn regarding the use of the YouTube recording as the basis for comparison. I know what you are saying in your post, that the commercial recording on YouTube serves as a datum, but my issue with that is, if that is your reference that you compare to and strive to achieve, then why go through all the effort and expense to assemble a home audio system? Why not just listen to the YouTube song tacks if that is as good as it could possible be, in your world? I don’t want my home audio systems to sound like the commercial recordings on YouTube, I want the audio qualities from my systems to produce a resultant sound that is even better to my ears, greater low & inner detail, nuance, extension and weight in terms of meat on the bones, and greater dynamic range than the mastering engineers that did those recordings for the masses were able to bring forth. If the commercial recordings uploaded by the record labels to YouTube are the reference then why not just listen to them? It seems silly to put all the expense money and effort to reproduce what you started with? I want to hear something better than what was provided to me by the record labels. |
It is certainly not as good as possible nor does it have anything to do with what I am trying to achieve. It is merely a tool for determining what others have been able to achieve on a "somewhat level" playing field. When I listen to YouTube, I am doing it sitting at my computer, listening over my computer's Advent system in near field. If I were to pipe YouTube into my living room over the big system, it would be subject to the same room limitations/modifications of my CDs. While the Advent system in nearfield is extremely revealing and has a smooth FR, it certainly doesn't have the dynamics, volume, or imaging of the Mermans in the living room. Remember that YouTube is a tool and can only convey so much information. As I said, the "commercial" effort (line feed) is as close as you will come to the source and while you prefer the sound a bit different, it's a distortion. Personally, I like a small boost in the upper midrange to bring out vocals and detail, and prefer this to a flatter setting. Nor do I so much mind the room contribution which brings the venue to me rather than vice versa, though I'm not crazy about the dip from floor bounce. Some distortions are to our taste, and some aren't. But when I'm listening to/comparing systems presented in YouTube videos, it is not about my personal preferences. |
