Real or Surreal. Do you throw accuracy out the window for "better" sound?


I visited a friend recently who has an estimated $150,000 system. At first listen it sounded wonderful, airy, hyper detailed, with an excellent well delineated image, an audiophile's dream. Then we put on a jazz quartet album I am extremely familiar with, an excellent recording from the analog days. There was something wrong. On closing my eyes it stood out immediately. The cymbals were way out in front of everything. The drummer would have needed at least 10 foot arms to get to them. I had him put on a female vocalist I know and sure enough there was sibilance with her voice, same with violins. These are all signs that the systems frequency response is sloped upwards as the frequency rises resulting in more air and detail.  This is a system that sounds right at low volumes except my friend listens with gusto. This is like someone who watches TV with the color controls all the way up. 

I have always tried to recreate the live performance. Admittedly, this might not result in the most attractive sound. Most systems are seriously compromised in terms of bass power and output. Maybe this is a way of compensating. 

There is no right or wrong. This is purely a matter of preference accuracy be damn.  What would you rather, real or surreal?

128x128mijostyn

Showing 3 responses by frogman

If to be an “audiophile” means that one has to completely dismiss the idea that there are aspects of the experience of listening to music (any art) that cannot be completely described via numbers/measurements (of any kind), then count me out. To believe otherwise is to miss the point of what, TO ME, being an audiophile really should be about: the quest for good sound that is in the service of the music. Not the other way around,

Music is expressed via sound. Music affects listeners in very personal ways. It is impossible to honestly discuss the sound of music in a way that is completely separated from the art. Art is a very personal experience. Our perceptions of the sound of music are always impacted, to some degree, by how the art in the sound is impacting us. It may seem like a quaint (at best) notion to some, but the science should always take a back seat to the art.

This is a long winded way of saying that I completely agree with mahgister’s basic premise that, ultimately, we have to let our ears decide.

**** Music is first of all mathematics not art in a usual sense. ****

Wow!  Remarkable comment which explains a great deal.