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

@mahgister your assessment of the two audio recordings parallels mine. The reason that I wanted you to listen to this comparison, which I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I would post, is that this demonstrates that the only thing that matters in the end and that should be judged is the composite resultant sound at the listening chair position. 

Someone could go through great efforts and expenses to get the most expensive equipment and hire professionals to acoustically engineer and treat their room and they will still fall short of someone who has made no effort to address their room acoustics but instead has made use of his knowledge to focus only on fine tuning the composite resultant sound at the listening chair position instead. 

The takeaway from this for you my friend is that this is great example of brains over wallet.

Well this is an interesting topic.  My goal has been to find an all around system based on your tonal preference.  In the end, if I want to turn the volume up that's good if I want to turn it down, that's bad.  It's simplistic but I have been at this for 50 years.

Ralph, so that you hear it from another source other than me:

Clearly AI...

Leave it to AI and gullibility (or perhaps the simple need to be right and make someone else 'wrong' regardless of actual fact) to think that Ohm's Law can be broken by digital electronics.

Were that so, the parity bit would never have been invented and there would be no need to worry about reflections in transmission lines (which occur inside digital products) and the like!

IOW, errors can and do occur. This can happen because bits in a binary word can be misinterpreted due to insufficient amplitude. Obviously Ohm's Law is playing a role. 

'I am in disbelief in your lack of basic principles.' wink

@atmasphere I strongly encouraged you to not make things worse. Your credibility has taken a huge hit and it is all self inflicted. If I were you I would let your post here get lost in the stack and start fresh in a few months. Take some time off the forums and read some digital circuit design and electronics books. Make this a learning experience and come out of this smarter and a better designer. Just my recommendation or you can continue to destroy the image that you worked hard to cultivate. The choice is always yours.

Your credibility has taken a huge hit and it is all self inflicted.

Highly debatable! Could it be actually the other way 'round??

Lesse... you accosted @mahgister for a post generated by AI despite you having done exactly the same thing in the post immediately before his :) 

Irony is apparently still a thing.

You avoided refuting my points other than writing stuff that was clearly nonsense and now shown to be erroneous rather than just poor writing. You demonstrated this multiple times; when given chances to correct yourself you chose personal attacks instead of fact. That seems to be an MO on this thread; my points still stand.