To me, surgically dissecting each track and obsessing about instrument placement isn't enjoyment, it's an OCD vampire sucking all the enjoyment out of music and probably life in general. I listen to music for pure enjoyment. I know the way I like it to sound and I build my system to obtain that sound. I want deep but not over bearing bass, natural mids and crisp but not harsh highs. I realize and accept that not all recordings have those attributes to reproduce, and I'm fine with that. No amount of money spent on gear will ever make a crap recording sound like anything other than what it is. Finally, I never audition my system for others because, quite frankly, I couldn't care less what others think of my system. I built it for me to please me, and it does that quite admirably.
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?
Showing 4 responses by rcm1203
mahgister"But no need to be offended it seems i am not as yourself an audiophile either.. I thought i was one but it seems no...my research for the optimal ratio soundfield quality/price is a renunciation to be a member of this selected club for the OP it seems ... The most important members must had the biggest wallet it seems.. Perfection had a cost in gear price"... 😊 I’m starting to see that in this thread as well. I too was apparently mistaking myself for an audiophile. How could I have known that 50+ years of spending a small fortune buying, selling and trading HiFi gear in the pursuit of my dream music listening system eventually would count for nothing in the eyes of my peers because I have not been properly listening to it? I’ve even bought gear because I liked the way it looked! Oh, the shame, the shame! I guess I’m also a ’poser’ because the most I’ve ever spent on a single piece of gear was $5k. If I had known way back when that I was eventually going to be outed, I would still be using my RCA fold open record player and have a lot more money in the bank...🤔😉
|
That last comment was way off base. As a 13 year old I cleared driveways of snow to get the money to buy my first real HiFi gear, Dynakits that I had to build. I usually bought used gear like my first real turnable a TD124 mk2. I have always made my own interconnects and build my own subwoofers. The best equipment is not cheap, it is also not hyper expensive. That Luxury HiFi stuff is the equivalent of a HiFi Rolex and IMHO a waste of money. This is still an interesting and friendly thread. I'm not offended and I am not trying to be offending. Our viewpoints simply differ on what constitutes a person's belief that they are in fact an 'audiophile'. |