@deep_333 You still have not provided the audio recording of the Strapping Young Lads played through your system. It is funny how you think that I’m “flexing”, I’ll interpret that you must be impressed if posting casually recorded audio recordings of a few of my systems is perceived as “flexing”. This is an audio forum and we are here to speak about and discuss our systems. Not a flex, just reality.
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
It's as mahgister said. Though the system sounds good, he also hears the room and it is leaving its "impression" on the resultant sound at the seat. Because I am unfamiliar with your recordings, I don't know off-hand where to find the YouTube line feed so I can get a better idea as to how much is the room/system and how much is the actual recording, but it has the characteristic sound of reflections associated with an untreated room and the sound permeates the various recordings giving them a similarity in "ambience." |
@mahgister You don’t get it and I don’t think that you ever will, that the resultant sound takes everything into account and if one resultant sound sounds better than another one it doesn’t matter what the composition is. I tried too many times to explain this to you but I must now disengage with further exchanges with you in this. The last thing that I would say is find an audio recording of a room that is controlled and optimized with the proper psychoacoustics parameter playing one of the many songs that I have post it on this thread and then compare the sound of that recording to the sound of my audio recording and then maybe it will hit you. |
Precisely. I dont even say the room is bad either. They are worse room. But the fact that the room is uncontrolled impede the system so good it is ( and Carlos speakers and system seems good through my system), but it is nowhere near his working optimal peak... I wish i can retrieve the youtube recording of a Chinese or Japanese audiophile in a completely tuned and controlled room...It was stupendous even through my low cost system...
|
@toddalin The “line feed” version of the song tracks are meaningless. The tracks stream from Tidal and what is sent from HQPLAYER to the dac is not bit-perfect, I have made it “better” to my ears, so comparison to the “line feed” version are irrelevant from a “match” confirmation perspective. I’m not trying to reproduce the “line feed” version, I’m listening to to a better, to my ears, version than the “line feed” one on YouTube. |
- 512 posts total

