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
469 posts
 

@toddalin I understand what you mean and where you are coming from in using the commercial YouTube recording as a feedback loop mechanism. It makes sense, but as concept is set up and it is based on the premise that the audio recording of your system played back on YouTube can only sound as good as the commercial recording on YouTube, no matter what system you play it back with, which is a good thing.

I do not want that limitation. What my system sounds like is all about and only about the resultant sound that I hear at the listening chair, regardless of of how that translates in the audio recording on YouTube, For me YouTube is just a convenient way to share the audio recordings because I don’t hear any substantial or material differences in the sound of the WAV files, other than the limitations of  the microphones’ in capturing the lowest frequencies, which gives the balance a very slight tilt up, which is easy to account for since it’s consistent.

toddalin's avatar
toddalin
661 posts
 

@carlos269 

I can hear the effects of your room in your videos.  You have a node that stands out.

Agreed the sound at the listening position is what counts.  But a good system will compare well to the line feed (e.g., frequency response) and the room acoustics will usually be be evident.

carlos269's avatar
carlos269 OP
469 posts
 

@toddalin interesting observation since the audio recordings that I have posted have been recorded in different rooms, which have completely different layouts and are in different areas of the house. Can you be more specific on which room nodes you hear in which audio recordings you hear the room node stand out so that I know which of my systems and in which of my listening rooms you hear the room node that stands out. If you can provide a time stamp for the room node on a few of the audio recordings so that I can listening to what you are hearing.

toddalin's avatar
toddalin
661 posts
 

@carlos269 

It is the test bed room.  It has an ambience that comes through in your videos done in that room giving them a tonal similarity.  You hear it in voices and I would have to go back and listen to all your postings to see which stand out the most.

The ambience can be from the room (most likely) or a peak in the response that is exciting the room.  If it is a peak in response, different systems should not show it.

I fight this problem in my room and modified the crossovers for less overlap to reduce how they excite the room.  In my case, I added 100 ohms in parallel with the 2251J.  This lowers the circuit impediance reducing the crossover point and taking "Q" out of the system.

rauliruegas
13,376 posts
 

ear @carlos269  :  I think that you are not really confident of the different kind of performance quality levels in your room/system and that’s why insist to look for other systems evidence looking for your own confident. Several of your posts are " absurd " for say the least.

 

You took 4 years in wbf showing your systems developments where through those short years even in some months you bougth/had 2 " new " different systems and next month you forgot of them and " experienced " with other ones. Nothing truly especial. Mading the same as other simple audiophile and the only that you showed in that thread is that you have the money to change/buy audio items as shoes: so what.

In those 4 years you were loking for validation of your experiences and no one gave you that validation down that forum, I think that in those 4 years only 6-7 different audiophiles posted " something " in your 11 pages thread.

here you neither found out yet the validation you are looking for and you will not because you are not " humble " enough to achieve it:

" and find the whole audiophile approach pretty silly and lacking intelligence so I developed my own way of executing adjustments to get the sound that I’m after..." and you said that your approach is the only " inteligent " one. Can you believe it?

and in that thread you have several failure statements that speaks that you are " unique " but in different way of what you think.

 

in that thread:

 

" Through the faulty medium of YouTube compression, I preferred the open baffle system by a bit. The Loth system sounded more intense and ’analytic’ "

that was the only post for some one and not validate your unique system.

 

you posted:

 

" has been upgraded with Paper In Oil (PIO) capacitors "" really upgraded? because best caps are not PIO.

 

"" The type 45 tube sound is so far my ideal balance between detail & resolution and a euphonic organic presentation.  ""

 

organic presentation coming from a unique audiophile like you? Well you like the PIO caps.

 

here you post:

 

" 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 "

 

 in that thread you posted about and this is what other gentleman told you:

 

" The "meat on the bone" is a colouration, mostly in the mid bass. Of course you have every right to prefer it but it does NOT cease to be an induced artefact imposed by the speaker. Your inference implies that it is a negative trait of the electrostatics ; and by the way, they do much, much more than "snap and crisp" as you claim. On the other hand, the fact that you used them as a reference to exalt the virtues of your electronics is indeed an endorsement! "

 

 

" and find the whole audiophile approach pretty silly and lacking intelligence so I developed my own way of executing adjustments to get the sound that I’m after..."

 

On the analog side you posted/picture an idler TT and said you own the Transrotor and Micro Seiki too and showed that TT with a Ortofon SL15 E handled by a SUT  go figure: a SUT from you?

Carlos with out need to bought additional systems I experienced around 50+ ones  in real time and real home system space. Systems for as low 30k to over 600K including the Triolon along  a Rockport analog front end.

 

Btw,almost all the SS electronics in your wbf thread I  listened at my place .

My advice to you is that be truly confident with your self and what you builded through all your audio years and enjoy it as you are doing today and as me and other gentlemans do: nothing less nothing more. Be confident with your self that at the end is all what it counts not what other validates.

 

R.

 

 

 

More to discover