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?

128x128mijostyn

I consider myself fortunate to be able to appreciate and enjoy high quality audio and visual reproduction even though I don’t require it to enjoy content (although some content can be pretty rough on the ears if it isn't reproduced really well, or sometimes if it's reproduced too well.) I have magic moments listening to classical music on the cheap FM radio in the car, sometimes when it’s not coming in very well. I’ve been emotionally moved by pictures printed on cheap media, or movies watched on 20" CRT televisions. I think most audiophiles and videophiles are the same way. Maybe we need a term like mediaphile for people who are excited about all kinds of high quality audio/visual and perhaps even 3D printed reproduction, castings, fine scale modeling, etc.

@asctim 

I made a set of two way open baffle speakers for a friend with subwoofers below. I hung the speakers from the ceiling with decorative chains. The baffles were made of a sandwich of Corian and MDF. They were very heavy for their size. Worked out very well. Just a thought. 

@asctim 

Curious that you would use the word impact. Your father may not have been going for impact. Impact sounds like the image has an aggressive quality where the it 'pushes' at the viewer so that the viewer is impressed. The artist adds saturation, brightness, and sharpness so that the image stands out and attracts the viewer's attention.  I can see this as being superficial with the appeal quickly fading and the viewer hungering for something with even more pop. Your father may have wished, on the other hand, for the viewer to be drawn into his photograph rather than impressed by it. I find naturalness tends to achieve that.  All of this is analogous to music playback. An obviously enhanced blue sky will take me out of a photograph just as a metallic edge to a cymbal hit will take me out of a song.  

brev  How can a "metallic edge' to a cymbal hit take you out of a song?  I have yet to hear an audio system that ever comes close to the true metallic edge of live cymbals!  I know.... I own over 20 cymbals.  There's simply no way a 1" tweeter can generate the energy of a 20" piece of brass being hit with a stick.  I think it's why many musicians don't obsess over audio systems... they are not even close to what the actual instrument sounds like live, when you are playing it.  

@mirolab 

I also play the drums, just not very well. You are right. It is impossible for most systems to produce the sound and volume of a crash cymbal, at a distance of one meter. Some horn systems can do it. However, at a concert you are not one meter away from the cymbals. It is very possible for a system to reproduce the volume of a cymbal at 10 meters. As a matter of fact, it is not even the treble that is the most difficult to get right, it is the bass. If you want to hear cymbals that make one squint, listen to any early ECM record. In the era we did not use any tone controls or EQ some of these records were not listenable. Violins and female voices can do the same thing, it is called sibilance. It is so common in systems that many people think it is normal! Many PA systems are also sibilant. Humans do not play instruments that hurt to listen to. They would toss them in the bin. Female voices are attractive for a reason. Sibilance is not normal and if you hear it in a system there is a problem. My definition of system includes the room. With EQ you can get rid of it buy programming in a Gundry Dip. When I evaluate systems I always play a string quartet that I know really well. If there is a problem it will find it. 

It is not that a system should be perfectly accurate, this is impossible. But, a system, given the right recording, should, and can make you feel, with eyes closed, that you are listening to a real event. I have heard exactly three systems that could do just that, bass included. I have also heard a few that could do it with certain genres of music, acoustic stuff. Some of us prefer systems that are so colored any semblance of reality is nonexistent. It is not my cup of tea, but everyone is entitled to their own flavor. 

When I play Waiting for Columbus for audiophile friends they are almost universally taken aback by the power of Richie Hayward's drums. The last one commented," gee, I am not used to this!