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
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
15,052 posts
 

I said my perception of your system synergy seems good to my ears. Congratulations!  Once this is said, this does not means that your recording  communicate TOP sound experience especially from your non controlled relatively small room .

I heard few times great sound from youtube each time from an acoustically  controlled room...

When i say your system sound good that does not mean your system /room cannot be improved way much  from  what you have now...

All acoustical control device and passive acoustic treatment are done from and for the listening location...it is an evidence by the way which does not cancel the necessity of acoustical control of any room ...smiley

No top system work at their real peak potential  in living room or in non controlled room ... Sorry to convey bad news...it is called acoustics basic...A system can sound relatively "good" as your own in a living room or in a non controlled room , this does not means it work at his peak potential...

My experience taught me that there is no relation at all between  the same system, before and after, acoustics installation passive treatment+mechanical acoustics control or DSP  acoustics control. None. For any system at any price.

 Why do you think architectural acoustic field exist for great Hall as for small room ? 

it is because good gear is not enough by far... 

Again my goal is not criticizing your system, it sound good to me, but my goal is to say my opinion, it could be way more great in a dedicated controlled room... 

If i had not experienced it myself, i would not believe the extent of the transformation of the perceived experience by acoustics passive treatment + active mechanical devices ( tuned resonators grid in my case) or active DSP as Choueiri filters which i am interested in  or others sophisticated solution (Gilbert Yeung )  etc there is many ...

Ultimately psycho-acoustics  principles and parameters drive engineering in audio never the reverse because any designer use acoustics principle in their design (hearing implants) audio gear, or room studio or personal dedicated room ...

 

 

@mahgister Think about what you stated, the sound of my systems sound good yet you are still concerned about the room. The sound that you hear incorporates the room contributions that I hear at the listening chair when I listen to my systems.

 

carlos269's avatar
carlos269 OP
473 posts
 

@mahgister  We have now started going around in circles and it is just not getting through to you that the net cumulative result of the contributions is the resultant sound. You could have a perfectly acoustically controlled room and optimal psychoacoustics parameters and yet yield an inferior resultant sound than what others have achieved without addressing the room acoustics. How is that possible you ask? Because the resultant sound is based on all the contributors and for example in the case of one of examples that I shared at the beginning of this threat where the system has a frequency extension of 8-12KHz it will never yield resolution, low & inner detail, as you will hear from a more cable system, no matter how optimized the room acoustics and psychoacoustics parameters are.

I just cannot seem to get it through to you that the ONLY thing that matters is the resultant sound. The resultant sound we hear with our ears and perceive with our brain is the net commutative contributions, some constructive other destructive. Therefore the best sounding resultant sound is the highest goal in the hierarchy regardless of how it is achieved as in the end it is the ONLY thing that matters.

knownothing
1,821 posts
 

@carlos269 Thanks for starting the thread.  Lots of discussion here on the dichotomy, or lack of one, around systems built to be more musical or more resolving.  As my system has improved, I find the two merging, and myself more and more interested in improvements that successfully if not perfectly marry the two.  I have enjoyed looking at the systems of members posting on this thread to see the relationship between their perspectives and how those manifest in investment and set up.

OP, you have clearly put abundant thought and hours of experimentation into your system choices and I am sure they sound fantastic in your rooms and listening positions.  Congratulations and thanks for sharing your experiences and thoughts here.

Much discussion in the thread has been around the utility of YouTube recordings.  I do NOT currently use YouTube recordings of gear to direct or inform my investments in audio equipment, FWIW. Music, yes, equipment, no.  However, OP has provided many recordings of his systems for evaluation, and I provide some thoughts because I do hear clear differences.

I listened to the OP’s YouTube recordings on my iPhone speaker(s) near field, via Bluetooth from my phone to Soundcore earbuds, cast from YouTube on my phone via Bluetooth to my main system’s streamer and listened through Grado GS1000x headphones or my speaker system, and cast via my phone and YouTube via Bluetooth to the streamer in my office system through the speakers there. Needless to say, the experience was very different in each case, but in all cases I could perceive differences.

Listening to the recordings posted by the OP on 11/2, I heard clear differences through the speakers on my iPhone.  All of the OP’s systems sound highly resolved to me, bordering on “bright” via the recordings. The “Natural Sound” recording “Once I Loved” sounds like it was recorded in a room with a lot of hard surfaces and reflections. The OKTAN6 system sounded both more detailed and less colored by the room in comparison.  Listening to the recording of “Wonderful Life” on the Test Bed system sounded good, with oodles of detail but also a bit more body than the OKTAN6 system, at least that is what I heard from the tiny speakers in my phone.

Listening to the three systems presented on 11/2 through my man system with the Grado headphones reinforced my conclusions from the iPhone session, but with much greater insight into the detail on hand, the rendering of bass in the three systems, and the recording levels.  The distinct room sound in the Natural System was even more evident through the Grados.  What was really quite noticeable with the Grado headphones was the difference in bass presence in the Test Bed system compared to the OKTAN6 system, Test Bed had noticeably more bass.  Also, it seemed to me that the recording level in OKTAN6 was lower than at least the Test Bed room.  Did you level check to assure they were equal at the microphone?  Because that is not what I heard with either the Grados or the Soundcore ear buds.  If I had to choose a favorite via YouTube, I’d pick the Test Bed system, which I find a little surprising given the number of speaker drivers in the room that I assume were not all actively driven.

Listening to the YouTube recordings in either my main listening room at home (‘good’ room acoustics) or in the office (‘bad’ acoustics) provided little insight and certainly less than through either pair headphones I tried.  Compared to how I know my systems sound with good source material, I was left feeling “why bother”. And the combination of the room acoustics picked up in the recording, the compression of YouTube, and the flavors of my systems and the acoustics of my listening environments was too much for any reliable diagnostics, and certainly less enjoyable than playing from my own sources.  YMMV.

OP, I am sure your systems all sound fantastic in person, and I applaud what your hard work has accomplished.  I would love to sit in your listening position and enjoy them myself.  As for the value of YouTube as a medium to share meaningful listening experiences, you put the nail in the coffin bro, it’s a hard “NO” for me.

kn

ghdprentice's avatar
ghdprentice
9,468 posts
 

@knownothing 

Nice.

carlos269's avatar
carlos269 OP
473 posts
 

@knownothing how do you explain that I’m able to achieve great sound on my audio recordings of my systems shared on YouTube and you cannot achieve even good audio quality on your system’s audio recordings? What do you think accounts for those differences? Could those differences some how be indicative in the differences in the actual sound qualities of our systems? I know the answer but curious to hear what you think.

More to discover