Yes, of course they do.
Do most people prefer tight bass or non tight bass?
Today I compared a McIntosh 462 to a Moon audio 761 amp. Both sounded really good. I noticed the bass was tight on the Moon Audio 761 while it was not tight on the McIntosh 462. Both on Dynaudio towers (do not know the model but they go for about 14k).
It is hard for me to know which type of bass I would like better in the long run. The tight bass sounded awesome and the non tight bass sounded more fuller. Curious, do most people prefer the tight bass or the non tight bass?
Showing 4 responses by gbmcleod
Great response. Thank you for this. I don’t think most modern audiophiles listen to classical or jazz music a lot, so acoustic instruments are not something they seem to know well. If I go by what I hear on YouTube, acoustic instruments are practically non-existent on most pop songs. By contrast, if this was 1982, it would still be mostly acoustic 🎸(and analogue). I can’t fathom not hearing all the beautiful instruments that exist. And it’s ironic: we’ve arrived in the ’Digital Age’ where everything is available, but we use fewer instruments to make music than we ever have and most of that is electronic instruments. Which is wildly ironic, since High End designers were trying to make their component reproduce all the colors of an orchestra playing acoustic instruments, only to have so much music reduced, 20 years later in pop music, to a diet composed (almost completely) of drums, guitar, synthesizer for the most part. The odd instrument is thrown in, but mostly, the tonal palette in pop music is pretty "gray"-sounding. |
Yes, it is! I suppose digital instruments reproduce some things correctly, but when they’re trying to reproduce the sound of an acoustic instruments. Well, they do a good job. Just not the whole enchilada By that, I mean "as well as analogue." When I hear a french horn on vinyl, I know instantly it is a French horn. When I hear it on some digital recordings, I can hear that the tonal quality is not the same. I can’t say that I hear that on vinyl. At least, not the records of the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s. When I listen to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtsTT-vJ9M4&list=FL8xpTP3iFfuJnnEXYYR5UGQ&index=3 I hear the brass, and they are recognizably the instruments I hear in the hall. The performance appears to have been VERY well captured, and the tonal qualities of instruments are there. When I hear this piece through digital (usually, a CD player), the tonal richness is less "there." It still sounds good, but it is not quite all the way "there." (I’m talking about this performance AND on other recordings.) And I haven’t found digital - in the past - to be fully likelike enough, that it is indistinguishable from the actual instrument in life. Many, many people who do not listen to classical, opera, jazz or blues will never miss this. But it is on some recordings, whether they "care" or not. And if it is there, I want to hear it reproduced accurately (aka: LIVE). I don’t mind people who say, "Well, I don’t care about that." That’s their right; it’s their preference. But when people then say, that $20K CD player is no better than my $1000 CD player, and start bashing others (with better systems than them, usually!), I wonder: what kind of music do they listen to? Because it’s patently untrue that a cheap dac will usually match one of the "giants." I’ve owned excellent, VERY top-of-the-line digital DACs, and they sounded....Excellent. As in: precise. Great Bass. Great Treble. Great midrange. But it did not always come together as a musical experience. Unless, of course, one doesn’t have a lot of experience with the real thing, and then it’s easy to think that you’re getting "everything." And again, someone whose diet is pop and rock is not going to hear what the best dacs do. There is not a lot of harmonic information in the typical modern recording. It’s mostly fundamentals. So, for those who don’t care, that’s fine. And your point is very valid. |