2. misc-audio
  3. 186655-129831

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?

mijostyn

Showing 5 responses by stuartk

stuartk
3,334 posts
 

@yesiam_a_pirate

The inherent problem with the HiFi journey is that it’s build on dissatisfaction.

Dissatisfaction/satisfaction is a choice -- you needn’t be dragged along on an unending path of unquenchable craving. It’s up to you to decide when your system is "good enough" . This is not only true in audio, BTW.

@mahgister refers to a "MINIMAL acoustic satisfaction threshold".  Perhaps think in terms of achieving that, rather than getting caught up in the belief you must  constantly upgrade in search of some holy grail that you may or may not ever reach. A system can simply be an enjoyable way to enhance listening for those who, first and foremost, love music -- it doesn’t have to be all-consuming.

stuartk
3,334 posts
 

@inna

As for the concept of "good enough", it’s an interesting one. No system is good enough for me because it is still far from real. Problem is not only the system but the recordings, most of them. So I just do one or two significant upgrades every few years and don’t think much about it.

Right. I wasn’t suggesting "inherent dissatisfaction" is a problem for everyone. 

Nor is the issue of whether a system sounds "real". There are far too many variables involved in live sound to identify a single, baseline for "reality". But if you enjoy chasing this chimera, have at it. Enjoyment is what we're all aiming for, right? 

 

stuartk
3,334 posts
 

@larsman

I do know what sounds better to me.

I do not know how true it is to what the artist, the producer, the mixer, and the mastering engineers laid down, as I was not there for any recording sessions so cannot make a comparison.

+1

It is an all-too-human trait to try to come up with objective rationales for subjective behaviors, tastes, etc.

 

stuartk
3,334 posts
 

@mijostyn 

People could easily see me as "inherently dissatisfied." As you suggest this may be true for some, but I look at it as a challenge, making a system sound the way I want, then doing it reliably. The only time I look at it negatively is when something fucks up or blows up. 

How "they" see your satisfaction/dissatisfaction is immaterial. If you're having fun, who cares what "they" think?  Sounds to me like you're doing what's right for you. 

 

stuartk
3,334 posts
 

@inna 

I never met a music lover who didn’t like good sound too

How many musicians do you know?

 

 

More to discover