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
rauliruegas
13,378 posts
 

Dear @carlos269  : "" 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. ""

Third time you posted and third time I agrre with.

 

@toddalin ​@knownothing  and all the other gentlemans that posted in this thread and the one in wbf I know agree with your statement but no one in both threads agree with YT medium to show what you want to show.

 

I think thatthe true problem resides first in that you insist in that any one shares his system YT video and this is your condition to take other audiophiles " seriously ". Along all those is your main target that's totally different to the targets  ( home audio reproduction ) of almost all of us or all of us and I posted about and let you clear but obviously not for you:

 

" resultant sound on audio recordings, or limiting oneself to the commercial recordings or trying to hear more of the recording..."

 

at least in this thread no one cares to " hear more of the recording ". My target is truer to the recording and I don't like to modify the recording as you only to even/suit a different target, I'm satisfied achieving my target and I already made a very hard " work "  over several years to stay  HERE .

I think that as me no one else needs to " validates " what is listening at his seat position when each one of us listen at seat position what we like and  it is exactly as you but with different targets.

You are happy posting videos then just follo doing in this forum and other audio forums and you can be sure that never will have the " quorum " you are looking for. At least here and wbf... R.

 

 

 

"

knownothing
1,821 posts
 

@carlos269 OK, thanks for the entertaining read.  But you didn’t answer my question about what you hear when you play your YouTube recordings back through your systems?  Do they sound good to you?  Do they sound different than when the programming is sourced directly from your digital or analog front ends?  Does the YouTube version provide a similar soundstage?  Detail?  Timing?  Dynamic range?  Are the YouTube recordings 60%, 90% or 99% as good as how it sounded in your room when you recorded them?  If you play someone else’s YouTube recordings made from their system through one of your systems, does it sound like their system or yours?  Just wondering since you are a strong advocate for this methodology of evaluation.

kn

carlos269's avatar
carlos269 OP
475 posts
 

@knownothing I have a dedicated simple near field speaker system with my Leedh Aura II mastering speakers powered by one of my FM Acoustics amplifiers that I play the audio recordings through to be consistent with my comparison. The sound of the my audio recordings are around 90% of what I hear in the room. You have any other questions?

knownothing
1,821 posts
 

@carlos269 no.  Thanks, helpful.

kn

toddalin's avatar
toddalin
665 posts
 

OK, "If you’re going to talk the talk..."

This is an SACD through an Oppo-95 played on a 22 year old Yamaha RX-Z9 RECEIVER with over 35,000 hours on it in "Pure Direct" mode played through my "Merman" speakers, which are of my own creation.  They use a JBL 2241H 18", a JBL 2251J 10", and a Heil AMT that I’ve modified unlike any others.

To make it work, I use a novel crossover design that I developed and have been tweaking over the years.  The speakers were developed in the room (~5,000 cu ft), for the room and I use no eq or room correction, either physical or electronic.  And there is no sub or "fancy" wires or cables used.  The speaker wires aren't even near the same length.  The recording was made using a Nikon D750 DSLR in the approximate sweet spot.

As I’ve said, I prefer just a bit of boost in the vocal range.  Here the crossover contour controls are near the center of travel.

Maybe an appropriate selection?

https://youtu.be/ijdmh_KkyQ4

https://youtu.be/M6J5zTCA4tU

More to discover