Sounds like the Doctor is more interested in drumming up business by oversimplifying the exercise of system building by creating the impression that systems are best designed by only targeting original sound expectations, and that anything falling outside that should be carefully rejected (adding an unrealistic degree of technical difficulty)...and naturally thereby creating the dependence on a dealer for ’expert’ advice on a topic that could just as easily be left on its own since much of the fun of the hobby is in the discovery of the unexpected surprises, even in the midst of what we might otherwise think of as a purchasing mistake - like how much we didn’t realize we might like, say, imaging...until we heard it in, say, a new amp we were trying out for ourselves, even if the component was for us a no go for other reasons and we returned it. But, what would the next move then be having run across something that made us rethink our sound priorities? I think it unnecessarily constrictive to suggest that the only valid expectations are those we originally start with. And if it’s going to be a given that our expectations are subject to change as we go, what then do we really need the advice of others for? Particularly in advance of the question. I fail to see the need for any of it.
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
- ...
- 151 posts total
- 151 posts total