So why does every system sound different? How are thousands of audiophiles chasing “what is in the recording” and yet all have different results? BUT even more important, how does one confirm, verify, and validate “what is in the recording”? What is the process for anyone of us to state that any our systems reproduce exactly what is on the recording? The so called “Absolute Sound” is a mirage. And after all these years you would think that you would have figured this out already. An ideal is just that an ideal and then there is reality.
If Warmth Is a Distortion, Why Do So Many Audiophiles Still Defend It?
Hi everyone, this is my first post here. If it stirs some emotions — that’s not a bad thing. It means we’re all still passionate about this hobby.
As AI becomes capable of recreating any sound signature — warm, tube-like, analogue, ultra-wide, hyper-detailed, and everything in between — I’m starting to think the real future of audio lies in neutral, transparent, dynamic, and accurate hardware, while many of the “flavours” we chase may soon become software choices.
Over time, a few things have stood out to me:
• Warmth is pleasant, but it’s still coloration.
Beautiful, yes — but not accuracy, not transparency, and not always the artist’s intention.
• Warm gear enhances some tracks but softens accuracy in others.
Especially vocals, piano, violin, guitar, and other acoustic instruments. Some people hear this, some don’t, and some just prefer it that way.
• Modern Class D deserves more respect than it gets.
Many older audiophiles dismiss it based on outdated assumptions. But the latest designs are already extremely neutral, fast, and precise. I’m not sure how much longer Class A/AB will remain relevant beyond nostalgia and brand loyalty.
• Price reflects real quality only up to a point.
Beyond that, it becomes about branding, house sound, and personal bias. Preference is fine — but preference isn’t the same as absolute fidelity.
---
⭐ Why I May Not Respond Immediately
This post is meant as a sharing of thoughts, not a debate I plan to defend point by point.
If I don’t reply right away, it’s because I’m taking time to read, think, and learn from others’ perspectives here.
Posting in good faith — looking forward to all views, supportive or critical.
- ...
- 205 posts total
We cannot go further than acoustics science. There is nothing in the recording save the trade-off set of choices of the recording engineer... Then you want your system/room be able to translate (not reproduce which is impossible a mirage) acoustically through your system/room/ears these set of trade-off choices of the recording engineer by the set of trade-off choices implicated by your system/room/ears... I call "minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold" the state of balance between all acoustics factors implied you can reach by a relatively low cost system well optimized...(almost all systems are relatively low cost in non dedicated room mostly living room) is it not simple? There is no reproduction only translation... Translation between the acoustical set of trade-off by the recording engineers from the original event ( Acoustic language A) to the set of trade-off choices implicated by your system/room/ears ( Acoustic language B ) The language A and B are constituted by all the words or acoustics factors and parameters in some specific balance ratio between each others, different for each person and situation. I simplify but it is this...
For sure we can go chasing with big money the "maximal acoustical satisfaction threshold" and we can go from an ok good translation to something which will always be a translation but more resembling a dreamed almost perfect elusive reproduction...But it will not be a question about price or high-end design, but also about deep acoustics knowledge, which escape most audiophiles anyway...
|
Many people are chasing what sounds good to them as opposed to what was recorded or what the real things sounds like. I was after that later. I don’t think the approach of comparing one recording is enough. But that exposure to lots of acoustic music to train your ear as to what the real thing sounds like, then listening to lots of recordings to evaluate your system is how to get to a system that sounds like the real thing. The empirical ruler is the real acoustical music and while there will be variation around different people mastering recordings you want to use the lots of recordings to converge on a system that produces music that sounds real. |
@ghdprentice The fly in the ointment is that the way the music was recorded and/or mastered might not be to represent the sound of unamplified acoustic instruments in a live setting. I will not reiterate what I have already written here and other forums numerous times, but suffice to say the sound of acoustic instruments in live events may not be a good datum for judging commercially produced and released recordings. |
Happily i mostly and almost exclusively listen to real acoustics instruments... I dont give a damn about listening a recording of artificial studio mixed sound of any commercial musical genre... Then i only want to know how a piano sound or an acoustic guitar or a lute or a ud or an organ or a choir etc ... I guess i am into music not gear electronics...
«The ointment is on the fly wings real music»-- Groucho Marx |
- 205 posts total