- I’ve found that anything that sounds unnaturally bright or fatiguing is not detail, it’s distortion. Systems that do that are not detailed, they just haven’t reduced degradation of the original signal sufficiently to pass muster. A truly detailed and accurate system is a joy to behold, because it lets through so much of the original signal, we gradually come to realise, with the increasing nuance that cleaner and more accurate delivery of the signal brings, that there are very few truly bad recordings in existence. Due to the depth of nuance to the soundfield for each recorded venue, good recordings are the easiest in the world to identify, not so the bad.
I’ve also found that the discussion of sound ‘preference’ in our hobby is a silly one - who wouldn’t want live music to be their base reference for every live recording they hear? Live music is not a preference, it’s actual sound quality, and through inference we subsequently gauge all studio recordings, mixed or otherwise. Even in the most atrociously sound engineered recordings, there is an authenticity to some instrument being played, analogue or electronic, which the original recording was intended to be heard with exactly as presented, as is commonly gauged by other live recordings we use for the simulation of accuracy - preference is, in fact, one of the most mind numbing paradigms many audiophiles live under, in excuse to avoid the huge effort of learning and expenditure it takes to find sound realism - preference has never had anything to do with the closest approximation to sound realism our amazing hobby is. Preference is actually the furthest thing to do with the sound realism.
That deep bass hit on an eagles recording sound too deep? Find a live acoustic recording of a double bass or the lower to lowest notes of an organ, then compare that to a live performance at a church, jazz bar or an orchestra. Identify it all with the same equipment in the signal chain, and that deep bass may actually be reasonably accurate, by inference. Shrill cymbal strikes don’t need much comparison - the highest frequencies that unsettle or don’t sound natural to one’s ears are not natural, they’re the result of distortion. In any case, most all the high frequencies heard on any recording can be compared with acoustic highs directly, on the same instruments. However, all frequencies, artificially manipulated, can only be compared by inference, to actual instruments over the same frequencies.
And, I know this will diverge from the original post by quite a bit, and also stir a bit of trouble, but for the sake of the discussion on realism, here we go - after I had done my rounds listening to some amazing systems in both analogue and digital realms, I’ve finally found a way to describe the differences I hear in the most refined fully analogue systems and their equivalents in digital: each present very different views of the audio universe - the very best vinyl/fully tubed system with horns will give you the James Webb view, a fully heightened and incredibly dense forward view of that universe, so beautiful and bold in presentation, you cannot pull your eye/ear away from it, seductive and unimaginably palpable. The very best fully digital/solid state systems will present the entire heavens through the healthy eyes of a twelve year old child on a clear Montana night with everything in perspective and the entire midnight sky to behold, nothing calling out for attention, but there when perceived. This is where preference may play a part.
Many of us mix tube preamps with solid state amps for the best of both worlds. Some say that’s silly, and mix solid state preamps with valved amps to keep the signal more accurate during the initial amplification phase, to the same end - getting the best of both views. Others swear by the beautiful glow of tubes from start to end, while others cannot bear what they see as their inconvenience of maintenance - you see the element of preference in all this.
For myself, I would only ever want to see the universe through the unaided clear eyes of a twelve year old - it is what to me best represents realism, the way my eyes/ears were built to see/hear it. I listen to the fourth movement of berlioz’s symphonie fantastique on vinyl/tubes/horns and I know no orchestra actually sounds that way in reality in any concert hall in the world, while everything gives me an actual seat at the venue with my transistors. I also believe the best balance for the budget conscious is a mixed system and, as fellow audiophile david sen once said, with the valves only at the end of the signal chain with the amp, sans horns. My own belief on this is so as to preserve as much signal accuracy for the soundfield as possible - we often sacrifice so much of the absolutely vital soundfield which solid state distinguishes so well and vinyl/tubes/horns tend to muddy, for beautiful timbre/texture/dynamics which tubes and horns, and the dynamics of vinyl so excels at. Fully digital systems on a budget already begin with so much distortion affecting soundfield at the source equipment, that all the tubes do in between that and the speakers is to create better texture and timbre to compensate. The best tubed equipment will reduce inaccuracy to the soundfield, but not as much as ‘good’ solid state will. And then again, one will require the best solid state to allow timbre, texture, and dynamics through realistically - so therein lies the audiophile’s conundrum - that eternal struggle between the preferenced and the unbiased, between the detail and the timbre, and between the soundfield and the dynamics. I realise these distinctions and polarities may not be exclusive to each other, and there will be other views on the issue, and as so, let the discussion begin ; )
In any case, thanks for your weighted question, mapman, and I wish you and everyone else well on your journeys and your year end : )
In friendship - kevin