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
476 posts
 

@atmasphere that is one of the benefits of having the visual aspect of the video. It shows the system being recorded and from what location the recording is being made. Of course someone can always cheat and embed some other audio on the video but what does that gain the person who uploaded or shared a doctored audio recording? Nothing really; as you have seen not many audiophiles value audio recordings when embedded in videos.

People use all types of equipment, like the guy, Josh I believe at Believe in High Fidelity, who is using ultra expensive professional studio microphones and high-end studio equipment to try to get an edge but to me the sound of his audio recordings/videos isn’t that impressive. So not sure the extra time, effort, and expense really gained him that much than if he would have simply made a simple recording with a portable recorder, phone, or camera.

Then you have people like Michael Fremer who will post audio recordings/videos of his system recorded directly from the output of the phonostage. That is not the same as a system’s audio recording recorded from the listening position.

The best way to hear or listen to find out if there is any shenanigans is to listen for the room contributions in the audio recordings because no matter how small they are there is always a slight trace.

People can always find a way to cheat but those that do are only fooling themselves.

mihorn
910 posts
 
atmasphere  That’s one of the many problems with YT; you simply have no idea of what’s actually being played or if you’re the one being played.

YT is same as any recordings or radio broadcasting. Your problem is that you are listen YT with a small computer or cell phone speaker. That’s not a YT problem.

Below my Bluesound power Node 2i (playing radio, same a YT) sounds similar to my other system sound. YT isn't a problem. *This is a big room (32’w x 44’L x 12’h). So, the sound is bit reverb.

Bluesound powernode 2i, Wavetouch audio live rec

Alex/Wavetouch audio

mihorn
910 posts
 
atmasphere  That’s one of the many problems with YT; you simply have no idea of what’s actually being played or if you’re the one being played.

All systems sound different. Your computer (or a cellphone) is a system. Of course. Your computer system sounds different from you hi-fi system.

Play a music (you listen with your hi-fi) in your computer (or cellphone). Then you know how they sound in your computer or cell. Your brain can do that easily. Alex/Wavetouch audio.

knownothing
1,823 posts
 

@carlos269 I just reread your passage quoted in @atmasphere’s recent post that says:

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

Whoa - who said anything about my “system’s audio recordings”?  What I said was this:

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.
 

To be clear, I don’t record my system.  I have never posted any claims about my system based on recordings.  The YouTube recordings I was referring to are your recordings.  And when I listen to your recordings including your room effects on my system with my room effects combined with crappy YouTube compression there is no way that it’s useful to determine anything.  Furthermore, if I listen to those very same cuts played through my system in my room directly from source material, they sound good with involving soundstage, detail, dynamics, timbre and good tone.  In contrast, your recordings of those cuts don’t sound as good to me.  At least headphones limit one of those variables, my in-room effects, but even that‘s not diagnostic, and I would not base any final judgements on precisely how good one system or another sounds based on YouTubeTo be clear.  Differences, sure.  Better?  No way.  And better than YouTube recordings of other systems?  Are you even kidding me??

kn

 

rauliruegas
13,378 posts
 

Dear @carlos269   :

"  limiting oneself to the commercial recordings or trying to hear more of the recording…"

 

"" I want to hear something better than what was provided to me by the record labels. ""

 

Look, of course that you can hear " more " of the recording but your approach is really away form that " more " meaning BETTER quality performance levels because according your posts in this thread and in wbf what you are doing is manipulating the recording signal.

Now the best and better true quality performance levels from any recording is  MIMIC/sTAY TRUER TO THE RECORDING where any single and " simple " manipulation of the recording signal to " improve " it only can degrades the recording signal because to manipulate the recording signal that signal must pass through another stage/path where will be taking new addied noise/distortions and in that very short new path will lost the recording signal original integrity .

Fpr everywhere that you look your approach it's a LOSER improce/appoach no matter what. You just can't chage ( as you think ) the Facts and physisc laws.

 

 

In the other side:

 

""" THD figures would be meaningful for the drivers but would be misleading as a key performance indicator for my subs. ""

 

Yes, you are totally wrong here too because the subs are the MUSIC foundation in any room/system and if  your Wilson develops 10% THD then this is the minimum you have but you need too to add the other driver/room developed THD that maybe will puts that overall THD even higher., I can't know.

 

Now, if instead of those Wilson subs you owned the 160K Magico stand alone subs whole things be totally different because those Magico has lower than 0.5% THD, go figure¡

 

You are dead silence with me after my last 3-4 posts due that shows like this unequivocal facts where you can't argue against it and never will.

 

R.

More to discover