It seems to me that what is desired is a mostly flat response without favoring any specific frequency or any frequency band that is a subset of the 20-20k band. That said, I am sure many of you have seen the so called idealized response curve that Harmon corporation suggests for a natural reproduction of music. While I hesitate to throw rocks at Harmon for arriving at this conclusion that a downward sloping curve from the bass end towards the treble end of the spectrum is ’ideal’ I maintain that instrumental balance in an orchestra varies according to who called in sick on the day of the concert. :) One time it might be top-heavy another time more neutral or flat and yet another more like the Harmon curve. I suspect the real ideal is a version that splits the difference between the Harmon curve and totally dead flat. Trained human ears are deceptively discerning when it comes to loudness differences and other aspects of listening to recorded music. It comes as no surprise to me that aspects of some equipment combinations just light some folks up with delight and totally turn off others. A little bass heavy as presented and apparently preferred by Harmon probably plays better than something that is too bright. Im hoping that as I choose new gear I end up with something that is satisfying on todays streaming content and also on what few CDs I have left. If I get back to pre-fire parity, I will consider myself incredibly fortunate. Detail when not in balance with the rest of the content is pointless. I seek accuracy. I want the system to produce what the production engineers burned to the disc without adding or taking away anything. If the listening experience to that disc is not good, I want to be able to blame the engineers who produced the disc for the unpleasant rendering rather than my own system.
Why isn’t more detail always better?
Is more detail always better if not unnaturally bright or fatiguing?
Accurate detail means as close to live or the recording studio, in the bass, midrange and treble. If you cannot separate the bass guitar from the kick drum, it lacks detail. If it is fatiguing, it lacks accurate detail. Accurate details are always better. You, however, may not enjoy a completely flat frequency response. |
Natural detail is always something to strive for. Unnatural highlighting of a certain group of frequencies that are pushed in your face is not detail - it's highlighting. If you're listening to a live unamplified performance, you hear all the detail meant to be heard (from a relatively nominal distance). If you suddenly rush the stage and wrap yourself with one of the performers in a shroud, sure you'll hear primarily that person and their breathing, etc. But if you step back to hear the whole group, what you will hear is the natural presentation as it was meant to be heard. Natural detail and transparency is not brightness, nor any other annoying artifact of reproduced sound. To hear a system that does this correctly is a wonderful experience. I've had a number of these experiences this past year. |
Most observation of details is a bad sign... Why? Because in a real experience of natural sound our attention is immersed in a natural way and not alerted by "something" out of balance from the tonal physionomy. In front of beauty we dont ask for details and we dont focus on details... We dont set a speakers/room for more "details" but for more naturalness and balance... In my opinion this vocabulary insisting about "details" in reviewers articles follows from their focus on the gear design for itself not from acoustic concrete understanding in a specific speakers/room... It is there in their discourse, not only to express their variable impressions about gear but to sell it... I dont buy gear i try to implement it acoustically in the right way... Customers want a reason to buy something new : "more details way more" is a winner slogan, true or not , thats does not matter...
If instead of a closed speakers/room i was designing an open amphitheater space, details perception will be a priority instead of balance, as in ancient Greek theater where a whisper is heard with "details" of the voice tone as a goal... When i modified my speakers port design, tweeter design and acoustic space i was looking for balance because balance reestablish naturalness with details which are not higher frequencies deceptive accentuation. Anyway we must work with the frequency range specs of our speakers to begin with and help them to reach well balance impression with and in the room... |
One aspect of "detail" that shows up in some systems to me is an unnatural separation of sounds. For instance, in my quest for new speakers I listened to a few very highly recommended models that made a cymbal sound like separate instruments (being struck and the resulting shimmer) and fingerpicked guitar where some string squeaking was front and center and completely separate from the guitar notes. I settled on speakers that (in my system) gave up a little "detail" but, to my ears, kept a smooth and natural transition of sound from each instrument being connected and continuous. |
I think, define, bloom as an "expansion/increase in that area of the lower midrange where the fundamentals of vocals emanate from." Furthermore, I think that I could even make a demo showing this effect in real time (i.e., A/B). When I raise the crossover point on the Mermans from ~310 to ~350Hz in the JBL 2241H 18" and boost it by ~1 dB, it really impacts the vocals which come alive and take on a more realistic effect. I can do this remotely at the flip of a switch for instantaneous comparison. |
"Details" or "blooming" are adjective used by people describing their subjective impressions. These impressions can be taken negatively or positively... They are not acoustic concepts. I look and design my system/room to gave me natural timbre with all spatial attributes of a located and 3-d sound... With the gear system/room available for me... I look for his optimal working which will be astonishing if i succeed nevermind the price or branded name ( I dont say that there is no difference of potential quality level here take note ) To reach this we must learn how to control the acoustic parameters at play... There is no kingly road to a good sound This has nothing to do with the gear price or branded name. ( it is evident that some gear are better designed than other but it is not my point ). The sentence : i want more details or i lack details or i had too much details is often an expression of our impotency facing a disturbing acoustic experience. It was for me before i learned how to use basic concepts in acoustic. As remedy we must experiment with mechanical vibration/resonance controls, electrical noise control, and especially acoustic and psycho acoustic numerous parameters variation in experiment ( i used my own devices to do this). |
Hmm I have ohm Walsh speakers that are very wide dispersion/pseudo Omni…somewhat like mbl. I never thought about it that way but sounds like they are good candidates to produce “bloom” as described.
I do always regard the ohm Walsh sound to be more like live music than most. That is their most unique sonic trait and why I always seem to levitate towards them.
|
"Bloom" is something mostly heard in live music, and rarely in reproduced (recorded) music (and the systems most of us have). It is when the harmonics (overtones) of an instrument (or an orchestra) spread outwards in space, the way it does Live in a symphony hall (but not in a rock concert, which is about brute force). In most systems, "bloom" is the least likely trait to be achieved, as that is typically seen in very expensive systems. My WATTs - none of the generations I had - were not the type of speaker to produce "bloom." The WATT, in its first four generations, had much more of the "direct" sound, which is what Dave Wilson was aiming for when he recorded. Most of his recordings were violin/piano very close to the microphone, so there is not much bloom there. My Avalons and Infinity speakers did do that. It is not related to attack or decay. Think of it as a kind of "echo" in that it goes on for seconds after a string is plucked, or percussion hit (assuming they don't silence the instrument manually). But the main point is that pop/rock music rarely ever have bloom. That is the purview of classical/jazz/international music, and even THEY must be VERY well recorded.
|
Hello, |
| Post removed |
@ghdprentice I got the same thing when switch from SS to McIntosh 240 amp. I could hear the burnished brass. I know you are not supposed to hear a color but I could. "Brassy" is not a detail but it is a something. I get a similar experience switching from delta sigma DAC to NOS. D-S is dynamic and more full range but has a kind of "bleached out" sound quality. When I switch to NOS the color comes back into the music. The way you describe your original system sounds like a "cerebral cortex system". But now is limbic. Which is right depends on the person. but IME I am dissatisfied withe the cerebral system because I keep hearing all the technical faults. As Detlof said something about hearing the music through all the audiophile smog.
When most people think of hi-end they imagine a "Cerebral cortex system." because that is how recording engineers listen. And that is what impresses when you listen to hi-end for the first time. Maybe you never go beyond that stage and that is okay if you find satisfaction in it. One problem with detail is when recording, they put the mic right up to the instrument and then add that track to the mix. Of course there is more detail than if you listen in a normal way from 10-20 feet away. |
@cdc +1
I find cymbles and bells are good examples for illustration. When a cymbal becomes a solo instrument and the leading edge is amplified. What is happening is not just the presence of the instrument is turned up but also the forwardness of minute detail is exaggerated. So when detail gets out of control it is as if there is an equalizer set on each instrument and then again on each frequency segment of that instrument… so turning up the cymbles and then turning up the leading edge of the sound of them is often what “hyper-detailed systems” sound like to me. An inexpensive system this is fatiguing and expensive not fatiguing… but kind of a sound spectacular, but very wrong.
When I got the cymbles right on my system I was shocked how much of the sound was brassy midrange (like the real thing)… suddenly, after the very brief tick of the drumstick they sounded rich and deeply brassy. A big bell so unbelievably rich and complex and not treble but midrange (I have never calibrated by terms to actual frequencies… but I think I am getting the point across). |
Detail has to be defined first. Detail to me is Resolution. Nothing wrong with seeking higher resolution in music. The most important factor in music is rhythm, pace, timing of sound. Without it, there is no music. Next one can choose from an assortment of preferences, tonal balance, warmth/body, openness/3 dimensional sound, transient response (leading/trailing edge speed), frequency response, etc. etc. I prefer a reproduction of sound which is emotionally connecting me to the music. So, detail/resolution is by it's nature potentially exploring the minutiae of a performance, the subtleties of the performance which engage both my emotion and intellect. The purpose of listening to music for me is to connect to it emotionally first though, so resolution is a byproduct of better music reproduction. I listen to much acoustically recorded music (pre-1925) and often connect to the performance despite the rudimentary recording quality. I just heard a Suzanne Adams 1902 recording on the Marston CD label that blew me away in it's sound quality. Almost sounded like she was in the room singing to me (I do have excellent high end gear). |
At first, I was thinking of the complexity of a cybal's shimmer. More detail = definitely better. Could never be too much. After listening to my current stereo, which is low detail, I realized that too much detail can be distracting and takes me away from the music. Do I want to hear a cymbal shimmer or feel the emotions of the musicians playing, for example. |
@avsjerry On the contrary. I think dipoles ruin soundstage and imaging by scattering sound willy-nilly about the room. Mine are blocked off at the backs and the "block-off" is a piece of modeling foam of a very specific size and shape covered with felt that is pushed into the V-notch. The rear reflection repassed through the front opening interacts with the diaphragm and creates a quasi ~3rd-4th order crossover at ~3,500Hz (regardless of your crossover setting) and instead of the Heil getting louder with frequency, this flattens everything above 3,500 Hz WHERE THE DETAIL LIES to ~12,500 Hz. Acoustic foam behind that ensures that any stray rear sound is further reduced. All that stuff on the front is nice. It improves soundstage, imaging, and focus by reducing ceiling/floor bounce, but the magic is in the rear. https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/im-fixing-a-hole-heil.1025205/ Great Heil response curve crossed over at 3kHz.
Modified Heil response curve. It is actually flatter/smoother now with the felts added. Do you see where the detail lies?
|
A line array of the above amt drivers could be outrageous, but if driven to that level of desire and intent, I'd opt to a pair of 2 of the Newform R45's....pricey, but in line with that level of intent..... Newforms' are rare to be seen for sale......not a dipole by design, but one could circumvent that with the application of mo' money....as usual....*l* |
@toddalin.... The magic being they're dipoles? I own 2 pairs of the 'big' versions, so no new news there.... ;) The mods applied to the plate structures ( L+R ) and the top and bottom recesses is nice, tho'. Cleans up their appearance, the bottoms being dust traps... Any audible differences from that? Is that a diy or an 'off the shelf' mod, available from where/who? Spouse is still without clue for my Xmas 'surprise' ( Hers' being a Kindle Paperwhite, after leaden hints....) |
@desktopguy -thanks. I've been around the block more than a few times, which means almost nothing, but I've heard a lot of systems over the 50+ years I've been playing in this field. I learned to listen using a pair of Quad Loudspeakers (which I still have and use- I bought them in 1974 and had them sympathetically restored for my vintage system by Kent McCollum at Electrostatic Solutions). The Quads (original 57s) are severely compromised by today's standards but had an eerie midrange. The reality is that they seem to filter out a lot of garbage compared to the main horn system, which at 104db efficiency, are very unforgiving if there is anything amiss- whether it is inter-component grounding, noise on the line, or any other source of noise or distortion. Getting that horn system tuned to what I believe is a close approximation of what real instruments sound like like took time- when I moved from NY to Texas, I got the benefit of a bigger room, cleaner power (though the grid in Texas is a whole other issue) and was familiar enough with the system, having lived with it for a decade that it was fairly easy to get it dialed in with a little effort (and some muscle from a friend's grandkids to move some of the really heavy equipment). I'll accept that I'm a subjectivist in that I listen for what sounds real to my ears. I don't have the high frequency capability that I did when I was young (I'm gonna be 71 years old soon) but since most of the action is in the mids, that's where I start. I've heard some of the legendary systems of the various eras, from double KLH 9s with Marantz tubes, through IRS V's, to the original Wilson WAMM to the big Apogees, the original oversized Martin Logan (Monolith?) to Duntech Sovereigns, the rare Dayton-Wright. (Never got to hear the original Hill Plasmatronic, though I knew somebody who had owned that speaker). The art of reproduction is different than "monitoring" and requires some effort in set up, placement and some deliberation in choosing components that "synergize" to create an effective illusion. Because that is what we are doing in home hi-fi-- attempting to create a convincing illusion of real instruments playing in our room. I use minimal room treatment, mainly bass traps, and very few "tweaks" though I spent real money on power, turntable isolation and cheated by using DSP on the additional 15 inch subs that run independently of the main speaker system. I used to have some full sized concert grands in a few previous homes. I know what a real piano sounds like. Very few recordings effectively capture the growl of the low registers or the ethereal quality of a well voiced piano in the upper registers. (I had a vintage Bosendorfer at one point, thing was gorgeous for about two weeks after it got voiced then soured). To me, it is horses for courses- if you play loud rock, you aren't going to want the original Quad (well, maybe stacked with ribbons plus woofers, something I experimented with back in the day) along with faux multichannel before home theatre made that a reality. I do enjoy listening other people's systems. I've heard some great ones in people's homes over the years. When people ask what to buy on the audio forums, I usually encourage them to get as much seat time as possible, though comparisons of cartridges and turntables/tone arms is far more difficult. Much of improvement I've enjoyed in this current system is the time spent in set up and voicing in my estimation (I'm a tube guy, so changing one tube can throw the whole system off). Have a great holiday-everybody! |
+1 @whart -- exactly right. No, more and more and more detail isn't good. It quickly becomes unnatural. The test is simple: 1 - Remember a time when you heard unamplified live music in a well designed acoustic space (classical in a really good room is ideal for this): or live amplified music in a good space where it just sounded well balanced, no peaky/shreaky headaches, bass overwhelming other instruments, etc. 2 - Remember the "detail" on that occasion? You probably don't. That's because it was just there, correct and in harmony with other aspects of the sound. If "detail" jumps out in live music experiences, there's something wrong with the room, the board settings if amplified, or maybe you're sitting too close/too far from the music. In reproduced music, I used those examples as acoustic comparators. If the detail within the music I hear from the audio system is even in the ballpark of those events, I'm OK with it. Then it's on to other things that are even harder for even good audio systems to get really right: dynamics (impossible to match the real thing), tonality/timbre, soundstage, etc. In my decades in audio appreciation, excessive, "hyped" detail is a constant annoyance that someone is always espousing to me as the best thing. It never is. It never sounds real or anything even close to real music. |
Remember Yamaha came out with Beryllium for the tweeter and midrange in the 1970’s. Paradigm followed suite around 2016 with the Persona lineup. For their new top end speakers, Yamaha did not want to use Beryllium, so they investigated a fibre used to make yachts (if I remember correctly). What’s interesting about this Zylon material, other than the sound and fast properties, is that the tweeter, mid, and the 12-inch woofer are all made with the same material. This makes for a very coherent sound. I do not need to go and listen since I bought the NS5000 a few years ago. Super detailed, no fatigue, and very coherent. |
A Zylon...WTF is it? Sounds like a polymer pastiche' to this unfortunate non-immortal..... Mabbe a layer of that Scotchtissue....laminated to the front of the driven surface for obvious 'texture'.... Of Course he'll opine that his OB's are better, Kenobi.....They're like that...*L* Won't say he's wrong, either.... ;) |
@noromance...The ’white paper’ answers a lot....most of which previously threw me into the trap laid.....I have a pair of drivers that work best with a blocked vent...imho and taste. the last of which...🤷♂️ I might try that on my Heils for grins.... @yyzsantabarbara....makes sense to me....Yam. wouldn’t stay in business if they don’t keep sharpening the bleedin’ edge.... Go listen and file a report....Due Xmas eve....take a roll or 12 of TP ’samples’....;) |
I was having lunch with a friend who is a musician | amp builder | speaker builder | etc. He was telling me that the Yamaha NS10M definitely needed some toilet paper on the drivers. I asked him if the paper had to be clean (being an audiophile). He still has a pair of the NS10M in his shop and uses them for some analysis. Interestingly he told me that the new Yamaha NS5000 was the best box speaker he had heard. The new Zylon drivers are detailed as Beryllium but not bright. The best of both worlds. However, he did say that his Open Baffle (non-box) speaker was better. |
IME, more detail is almost always better, as long as it’s accompanied by a good bass foundation and low distortion. The problem with many speakers and components is they produce the detail but not without distortion, especially IMD. When you finally get speakers with truly high quality drivers, the IMD is low and you get the detail without the fatigue. That is, unless the recording is actually terrible. |
@noromance ...*laugh* Well, I got the Yamaha part right.....and I was a Y-rider when I wasn't so easy to bruise 'n break.. Now, when I'm living in a bike-friendly area with lotsa curves, I make do with the 4 wheeler.... Thankfully, it's reasonably nimble.... The NS-10 sounded like one of their 'GP street bikes' that cost like a car and require being as much of a fanboy as we are re audio... At least we don't have to wear leathers to listen....unless you've inscrutable tastes and interesting habits.. 👍😏😎 |
@asvjerry Yeah, this. Examining the Yamaha NS-10M “Tissue Paper Phenomenon” Bob Hodas - Educational Resources |
@noromance ...oh, had to switch dialects, alter the unconsciousness gain.....Now, if we wind down the ’noids and pump up the volume, dance, dance..... "It’ll be aaaalllll rrriiiight....", no? *bedazed @ the fountain* @mapman ;) Gotta’ watch that "technology from 20 or more years ago" rant, when we’re both really happy with one that’s 2.5x that..... Best example of the single driver format, rotated 90, and stretch the cone.... Like any of the speaker designs we prefer and laud about to those still awake, there’s that tweak that makes it sing for us. The 3 section cones of the F......the Heil amts’ rippled ribbon, don’t push/pull when you can pinch ( without getting slapped over it...;)....).... The method is in the movements and how precise it can be in a given span... The decay of the struck piano (harp) string....how close to what you’ve experienced before and tomorrow....does the percussion match the drive and dream of IRL....the keyboards with lines to enhance the other instruments, the vocals dodging or floating the lyricals.... *nirvana delayed only for now....* Lots of variations on the themes of How about to about us to select the Way....including the paved perfection through the rocky path on cliffs’ edge to the Hermit Audiosociopath... We attend shows, visit B&Ms’, ’zines, sites, converse with other Seekers of the Improbable Infinity, Driven. (*sigh* Long way to go to dump a pun....if only for groans... 😏 ) The entirety of the above was with this in the headphones....in loop.....bmb ;)
|
Detail is at all frequencies. Dynamic range facilitates detail. Most music occurs in the midrange including voice so detail there probably adds the most. Interesting to consider most any decent speaker can cover midrange. Yet the results can vary so widely! How can one account for that? Detail including transients, frequency response, very low noise, dynamic range…… that’s it for me. Take out the detail and not much left. Isn’t 4K video resolution always better and always preferred? Just do it well! Who still wants a tv limited by technology from 20 or more years ago? Not me. Audio follows a similar pattern. Advancement in technology and applying it well is the key. |
Good thought that detail is not only in the treble. Although that is where we think of it. But it is also in the midrange and bass. One of the biggest revelations to me was when changing to tubed amps the nuance of bass that I had never heard before..of course as well as in the midrange as a result of it being fully represented, |
@noromance ...*?* My UniversedXlator came back with "Duh?: Yammy=Yamaha, NS10=GP RR bike:?"...per the onboard wetware.... Rev&Repost? Pwease.... ;) |
@asvjerry Tissue on the Yammy NS10s. |
@waytoomuchstuff ...as one who accompanied spouse to her 50th HS reunion over Halloween wknd.....both agreed an excuse to visit NYC over the following wk. DJ lame....crowd overdressed....if not in the company of one of her 2 friends then & now, unrecognized....self a stranger on a stranger chunk of the planet.... ...and hadn't even been to Manhattan yet....*LOL* Missed return from Newark by minutes.... "WTF is plan B.S?!" Renter (NEW! 300 on a Nissan sedan for 40$/d, no limit mi.....) Watch this, commuters....700 mi. in 11ish hrs., 80~85 as poss. on Interstates. Spouse has learned how to 'push it' from yours unruly....❤....;) ) End of day, worth it to escape the flood routines, thanx Helene... @mapman , GF, zed argument from your DIY Walsh adherent here...👍😉 Re-arranging here into a 'proper' Walsh surround w/sub to prove to spouse that a pair of Maggies will suck. Even if I tag the ESS amts' along to tag along...which require nil space.... Have 4, can astound soon; surround amt's of the same caricature's....just like IRL....*wooosh *L* @dishman442 Yeah, it's only when the raw meat gets tossed in that things get 'complicated'... ;) +10, Yes, only gets more involved when we bring our stuff home that the formulas get involved, drastically by the space we try to make it 'happen' within. DSP can improve, but likely never cure the 'random locale' we attempt to live and live with re audio endeavors... SAV can be a sofa too high to surmount....unless you are or have the wallet to become a monk..... ;) |
I must say, this thread has proven people can discuss a subject at length without someone pissing in someone else’s post toasties. Kudos to all. My two cents: Low (volume) level detail can get lost in noise, so chasing hum and AC noise can pay detail dividends. This detail can include pretty much the whole spectrum of frequencies. Most of us (myself included) tend to think of detail or lack of as occurring in the higher frequencies in the realm covered by tweeters. Some mechanical aspects of tweeters impact detail like low mass (speed) and low distortion, but assuming quality tweeters, much of what we perceive as detail is driven by the amplitude (volume) from the tweeter. In my experience contributing to speaker design a LOOOONG time ago, we could increase the volume of the tweeter and it would enhance the level of detail we perceived. Cymbals would shimmer, the attack at the beginning of a guitar note was addictively clean. Life was good. Things I had never heard were uncovered, like noticing the piano player was quietly singing along or tapping his toes to the beat. Percussion at the back of the hall on classical recordings was “right there” instead of smeared across the back of the soundstage. However… we eventually noticed the downside to all this detail; fatigue. Whereas before our listening sessions often lasted long into the night, now we had had enough after an hour or two. On some recordings, in particular digital recordings, it felt like I needed to duck when a cymbal TING flew past my face. All this detail was masking the glorious midrange we had worked so hard to achieve. Midrange is the meat and potatoes for those of us who love to get sucked into the involvement of great recordings where we look up and hours have passed in heady enjoyment. Mercifully, I’ve come to my point. All speaker manufacturers deal with this balancing act. Hotter tweeters produce more addictive detail, but at the risk of causing less musical and more fatiguing results. We as audiophiles can impact the balancing decisions made by our speakers designers with the equipment we choose, interconnects, room treatment, speaker placement, etc, but that’s a whole different set of subjects.
|
@ghdprentice @lalitk @whart and others — great points & discussion! |
@asvjerry also to help clarify. The Ohms are still the speakers that I want to listen to the most for pure musical enjoyment. Nothing new there…..it’s for all the same reasons as always. Ohms put the performers in your room best. If I must choose I prefer having the orchestra squeezed into my room like a mini concert venue. Nearfield listening is for immersing yourself in the recording. It’s more about the recording itself and less about pure musical enjoyment.
Two totally different listening experiences. Both enjoyable in different ways. Both benefit from more detail, dynamics, etc. All those good things that make music interesting. I’m getting more of that now than ever with some recent enhancements upstream. It’s an interesting thing that I think you have to experience in order to appreciate. I am fortunate that I get to enjoy the best of both worlds. YMMV cheers!
|
@asvjerry Glad you asked. The nearfield setup lets you peer deeply into the recording. Like most people I am not using the Ohms for nearfield listening though I have tried that and it works quite well. If I had to choose only one speaker would still be my big Ohm F5s. Second choice would probably be somewhat larger KEFs. Blades would likely be the ultimate. But I am not really interested in any new big heavy gear these days. I’ve had success downsizing yet improving the sound in general by doing my homework and leveraging smaller and more cost effective products that take advantage of technical innovations.
Note that I do use a sub with the little ls50 metas and that combo set up well is hard to beat in smaller rooms at least and at listening levels considered safe for long term exposure. I also have a pair of Italian crafted Sonus Faber floor standers that I got a very good deal on locally on the house. Those are lovely in all ways also but of course are way different. |
As the aging gentleman said as he abruptly exited the room ... "Depends" The term "detail" would imply "information", So what could be wrong with more information? It depends/Depends. When we made the transition into HDTV, those prominent primetime news anchors looked ..uh .. 30 years older. Didn't help their ratings. Or, make our TV dinners more palettable while watching. Those "details" also contain spacial information which plays a major role in focus, staging, and "air" in the presentation. Sometimes the "details" are just right, but the room is getting in the way of an, otherwise, magnificent presentation. Or, sometimes the "details" sound perfect to our ears at moderate levels, but when dynamic passages are presented and other parts of the music just can't keep up, and those ":details" become prominent, and overwhelming. Like the time when we run into an old high school flame 30 years after graduation wearing short shorts. More information is not always better. |
@mapman ...How's the Ohms doing in that regard? :) |
Detail done right, like my Schitt Yggi+ OG DAC is amazing. I think the new SimAudio North Collection amps are getting raves because of the detail but also the natural sound of that detail. They are (almost?) as detailed as the Benchmark AHB2. I love the RAAL SR1a and the Immanis phones because they are uber detailed. The Immanis being like the North Collection amps with the natural sound. That is why there is a world-wide lineup of buyers to get these phones. I have been listening to my SR1a phones for the past 4+ hours into the night as I work and there is 0 fatigue. Sound is so good I am not missing my 2-channel. The KEF LS50 Meta + KEF KC62 sub in a small room is amazing. I liked the wall of sound of the Magnepan LRS+ with the same sub, but it definitely was not as nice sounding as the LS50 Meta. The LRS+ was more interesting sonically with the massive deep soundstage. The only time I did not choose detail. |
