@wsrrsw can we hear what the professional acoustic tuning accomplished? Make an audio recording of the same song/track of one of the many that I have shared and let’s hear how it sounds. You don’t have to record with a phone if you don’t want to and you don’t need to share it over YouTube either. Showcase the sound of your room and your system and let us hear what the professionals did for your sound. Put your best foot forward and let’s have a listen.
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
The sound of your test bed room is evident in your recordings. If you would post a video that also has a YouTube line feed we could get a better idea of how much. I listened to your Blue Monk, and while I didn’t find the equivalent line feed, none had the "flavor" of your room and they had more low end. This gives an idea of what my system and room do to the sound. The floor bounce and furniture remove bass at the sweet spot and the camera catches this. You also hear the liveness of the room, which is quite large and considered by most as an acoustic catastrophe.
Other than the pleated blackout blinds, there is no room treatment. The recording is an SACD played on an Oppo-95 through a 23 year old Yamaha RX-Z9 RECEIVER in "Pure Direct" mode though the pair of my "Merman" speakers. There is no sub, eq, or other room correction, either electronic or physical being used. The recording was made using a Nikon D750 DSLR in the approximate sweet spot. The interior volume is close to 5,000 cubic feet. In this case I had the crossovers set with the "brilliance" turned on and you can hear the "edge" that it adds. Still, it is certainly possible that the SACD is not the exact same mix, as the "official" mix presented on YouTube as often happens. And this what one should be comparing it too. It doesn’t matter what you are listening on so long as it is of quality. You are not listening to hear what the system actually "sounds" like, but rather how it differs from the line feed. |
@toddalin when you wrote that the “line feed” versions that you found on YouTube had “more low-end” did you mean to write that they had less resolution, low-level & inner detail, and nuance than my audio recording of Blue Monk? The relative arrangement, in all my systems, between the listening chair and speakers is designed and implement to minimize the room contributions so the low frequencies room reinforcement is not part of my room sound “flavor”. Here is the “official” line feed on YouTube of Blue Monk for comparison to the audio recording of the same recording streaming on my tTest Bed system. Yes, it is rather unfortunate that general purpose microphones struggle to respond to the lowest frequencies but yet, one of these recordings makes your toes tap & sounds exciting, at least to me, while the other one sounds dull, lacking inner detail & nuance, and monotoned by comparison: Blue Monk (Official YouTube line feed version)
|
I never thought that good sound was about details and resolution first and last... This is preposterous... Comparison from youtube videos is comical especially when people think that their uncontrolled living room is good as it is and more, better than most ...I learned it by acoustics experiments, not buying gear pieces or modifying them.
Good sound is about "timbre" natural and realist perception as recorded by the audio engineer and it is about the way they are translated by our system/room under acoustics control, not just with passive treatment, but even with mechanical or DSP control and parameters (ideally from inner ears and HTRF measures ). There is 5 factors defining timbre perception and their related parameters controls , none of them is resolution or details ( which is associated mostly with marketing).. When we tune a system/room together we dont look for resolution "per se" as an objective , we look for the different ways to make the trade-off recording choices of the audio engineer recording a live event, something which could be perfectly or optimally translated in our system room...(not details per se but timbre quality of the recording translated into timbre quality perceived in our room) Speaking about resolution as first and last criteria for a system in a non acoustically prepared living room is only gear marketing legacy conditioning consumers mind to think that buying this or that will be enough, no need for complex acoustics, "our product is perfect", proof: listen to it on youtube... |
I bite my tongue and try not to say too much or over share as I want to keep somethings to myself but the irony and lack of understanding by others just eats at me and forces me to provide more information. I first thought of the concept that I now use to achieve the sound that I want from my systems back when I was working on a project for the design of a technology upgrade for the radiation hardened single board computers on the military 1553 backplanes for the space shuttle fleet’s telemetry systems. At the time the concept came to me but I did not have the knowledge of frequencies adjustments and dynamic processing required to achieve the desired results. It wasn’t until I immersed myself in the high-end mastering studio world for seven years that I gained that knowledge. What I do is basic control theory. Control theory is the use of mathematics and engineering principles to manage the behavior of dynamic systems, ensuring they produce desired outputs despite external disturbances. I found it so ironic that the guy that’s making all kinds of claims and accusations about me and my systems then brings up his love of Velodyne servo controlled subwoofers. It goes to show that those that don’t know much but have a lot to say really have no idea that what they condemn & malign and what they praise sometimes are related. Not the same obviously but in the universe of possibilities, congruent orbiting concepts. |
- 512 posts total