Ultimately what are we trying to achieve. Sound that is engaging, clean, clear, nothing harsh that hurts our ears? Two or three guys sitting around a campfire at night with acoustic guitars and a Cajon singing is as real as it gets. Trying to record that moment and mix it and replay that through an amplified system can never be exactly the same. IE your position to the live music, backround noise, mics, recording equip, ect. I am an audio engineer and mix live music. I ultimately change the way people will hear the musicians. Every event has its own acoustic challenges. I use my ears to accomplish this. I add and subtract different frequencies to make it sound as close to how I think it should sound using my lifelong experience as an avid audiophile. A different engineer will make it sound different because of his preferences. My point is that what we try to achieve in our home systems is very personal. I have spent a lot of money on my home system just because of my love of music. Every piece of equipment adds or subtracts some color in the experience. There is no right or wrong. Our brains perceive things differently. I can be from both camps depending on the music and situation. We are all unique with different ears and brains so its allot more complicated than that. Is there audio nirvana? I think I will only experience this in heaven.
Two Type of sound and listener preference are there more?
In our thirty years of professional audio system design and setup, we keep on running into two distinctly different types of sound and listeners.
Type One: Detail, clarity, soundstage, the high resolution/accuracy camp. People who fall into this camp are trying to reproduce the absolute sound and use live music as their guide.
Type Two: Musicality camp, who favors tone and listenability over the high resolution camp. Dynamics, spl capabilty, soundstaging are less important. The ability for a system to sound real is less important than the overall sound reproduced "sounds good."
Are there more then this as two distincly different camps?
We favor the real is good and not real is not good philosophy.
Some people who talk about Musicaility complain when a sytem sounds bright with bright music.
In our viewpoint if for example you go to a Wedding with a Live band full of brass instruments like horns, trumpts etc it hurts your ears, shouldn’t you want your system to sound like a mirror of what is really there? Isn’t the idea to bring you back to the recording itself?
Please discuss, you can cite examples of products or systems but keep to the topic of sound and nothing else.
Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ
Type One: Detail, clarity, soundstage, the high resolution/accuracy camp. People who fall into this camp are trying to reproduce the absolute sound and use live music as their guide.
Type Two: Musicality camp, who favors tone and listenability over the high resolution camp. Dynamics, spl capabilty, soundstaging are less important. The ability for a system to sound real is less important than the overall sound reproduced "sounds good."
Are there more then this as two distincly different camps?
We favor the real is good and not real is not good philosophy.
Some people who talk about Musicaility complain when a sytem sounds bright with bright music.
In our viewpoint if for example you go to a Wedding with a Live band full of brass instruments like horns, trumpts etc it hurts your ears, shouldn’t you want your system to sound like a mirror of what is really there? Isn’t the idea to bring you back to the recording itself?
Please discuss, you can cite examples of products or systems but keep to the topic of sound and nothing else.
Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ