Do you like a little fiction?

[Charlie Jefferson]

PhilPub:
Actually for me there's an inescapable interaction between 1 and 2 which I'm nearly always aware of when I'm listening to music. IMO one of the jobs of the producer is to create something which fully reflects the original artist's intention, whether this be an accurate portrayal of their voice, acoustic instruments, faithfuilness to an original live venue atmosphere, etc, or deliberate distortion/effect such as guitar effects, synth/electro, drummachine instead of drum... So maybe it's analytical but for me part of the enjoyment of listening to music DOES involve actively listening out for instruments, imagining myself at a live venue, admiring/spotting studio trickery, etc. So there can only ever be a subtle interplay between 1 and 2.

I've recently enjoyed a system upgrade, having replaced 15 year old speakers and CD player. I think it's inevitable that, certainly in the early stages, a lot of my listening will be veering towards the critical/analytical, and I am very much enjoying hearing all the improvements in sound I'm hearing. In trying to explain to people just how much the sound has improved, it's an unavoidably intellectual exercise which involves listening carefully for accuracy in sound reproduction, but one I'm enjoying at the same time. So I'm definitely more of a 1 than I was previously, given a greater appreciation for better SQ. But far from being able to pick either one or the other, it's the interplay between the two which adds to my enjoyment of listening.

I think I agree with every word.

 

[John Duncan]

igglebert:Now, JD, that's not fair.

Regardless as to whether both solutions have 100 boxes each or 3, my own experience and some observations have shown me that many people box swap because they can't get the sound balance right.

What if they can't get the sound balance right because 'accuracy' makes their chosen music sound a bit, well, dull? Should they just listen to more Katie Melua?

 

[ID.]

JohnDuncan:igglebert:Now, JD, that's not fair.Regardless as to whether both solutions have 100 boxes each or 3, my own experience and some observations have shown me that many people box swap because they can't get the sound balance right.What if they can't get the sound balance right because 'accuracy' makes their chosen music sound a bit, well, dull? Should they just listen to more Katie Melua?

I like a little friction

 

[John Duncan]

ID.:I like a little friction

I can recommend Cyrus

 

[the record spot]

JohnDuncan:igglebert:Now, JD, that's not fair.

Regardless as to whether both solutions have 100 boxes each or 3, my own experience and some observations have shown me that many people box swap because they can't get the sound balance right.

What if they can't get the sound balance right because 'accuracy' makes their chosen music sound a bit, well, dull? Should they just listen to more Katie Melua?

Not sure why accouracy makes music sound, well, dull. It would seem to me that accuracy would merely make the music shine through. Neutrality in components might, but accuracy not. Failing to understand the logic at work here.

 

[John Duncan]

the record spot:Not sure why accouracy makes music sound, well, dull.

Compare and contrast two examples of the same source (in this case, a Fender Stratocaster):

Accurate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB91ayDlQLE

Coloured

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GSpbuFSr2o

 

[the record spot]

JD, I'm not going to be listening to a Strat, nor will do in any circumstances that don't require a concert-hall sized PA - the point is for music listening through a domestic audio system, accuracy needn't be an issue. Prejudicial thinking might be and there's plenty of that in this industry though.

I get the idea that neutrality could certainly make a system seem bland, or just unlistenable (unless you're a producer, then that's exactly what you're after for different reasons) which is why many active monitors are unsuitable for a domestic system (but not all), yet accuracy is less of a threat to your listening than something that's got a THD of 1.0% or worse.

 

[Craig M.]

how about we change the word accurate to realistic? i'd much rather listen to music on something that sounds realistic.

the posts that suggest you have to sit and analyse an accurate sounding system, rather then enjoying the music through it, are laughable. how are you supposed to analyse something that just gets out of the way of the music? i certainly don't, it's why i ended up with this system, i'd rather listen to music then the kit that's playing it.

 

[shooter]

How do we decide what neutral is..

I can only think of one power amp that i have read about (not heard) that has no sonic picture of it's own (MSB). Again only one speaker that i've read (not heard) to be tonally neutral (ATC).

Do you think is is possible to build a tonally neutral system as you would need a tonally neutral preamp to work with these, is there one?

I havent read every known review or heard similar system's but would be interested to know if a neutral system can be build.

Will we really be able to hear what the engineer intended?

 

[6th.replicant]

Fascinating thread

But it's messin' with my head

FWIW, when changing hi-fi kit, my yardsticks are how the setup relays a violin's, a trumpet's and a classical or flamenco guitar's sound. As a yoof, I tried (lamely) to learn to play the first two and grew up in a household where the last mentioned were made and played. So I assume that their real sounds/tones are hard-wired into my bonce.

I know I like the sound of all of the aforementioned instruments, so I think I know what they should all sound like when played via hi-fi, accepting that any listening-room's acoustics are different from the concert hall/studio where the original recording was made. But what am I really hearing - is it what I want to hear or what I think I should hear??

I'll get my coat...

 

[plastic penguin]

Craig M.:

how about we change the word accurate to realistic? i'd much rather listen to music on something that sounds realistic.

the posts that suggest you have to sit and analyse an accurate sounding system, rather then enjoying the music through it, are laughable. how are you supposed to analyse something that just gets out of the way of the music? i certainly don't, it's why i ended up with this system, i'd rather listen to music then the kit that's playing it.

Isn't ATC meant to be the most neutral/accurate sound around at the price?

I do dislike people, not aimed at you, Craig, who constantly slag off floorstanders and seem to rubbish the notion - are they really muddy? yes, some are, but so are some stand mounted speakers.

Goin' bcack to your original comment - think natural would be a more hi-fi PC term.

 

[WinterRacer]

How about we reword the question to, do you prefer:
1. Wide bandwidth, accurate and controlled bass, flat frequency response, no phase problems around the crossover, plenty of power so that a system just gets louder rather than sounding different. Nothing added and nothing taken away.
2. Limited low bass output masked by a poorly controlled driver and mid bass hump, distortion around crossover masked by a dip in output. A clipping amplifier that makes some music sound more exciting and louder, but gives a harsh treble and (more) loss of control of the bass driver, etc.
From replies, people seem to associate smooth with option 2 and harshness with option 1. We have lots of euphemisms for distortion, like colour, warmth, but the IMHO, the attributes that people enjoy like warmth, a silky treble, etc. are attributes ascribed to a lack of distortion.
I'm not sure where the idea that accurate is bad really came from!

 

[BenLaw]

WinterRacer:
How about we reword the question to, do you prefer:

1. Wide bandwidth, accurate and controlled bass, flat frequency response, no phase problems around the crossover, plenty of power so that a system just gets louder rather than sounding different. Nothing added and nothing taken away.

2. Limited low bass output masked by a poorly controlled driver and mid bass hump, distortion around crossover masked by a dip in output. A clipping amplifier that makes some music sound more exciting and louder, but gives a harsh treble and (more) loss of control of the bass driver, etc.

From replies, people seem to associate smooth with option 2 and harshness with option 1. We have lots of euphemisms for distortion, like colour, warmth, but the IMHO, the attributes that people enjoy like warmth, a silky treble, etc. are attributes ascribed to a lack of distortion.

I'm not sure where the idea that accurate is bad really came from!

Excellent post

What's your setup WinterRacer?

 

[WinterRacer]

Thanks 🙂 My setup is to be decided! My main system has been in storage for the last 15 months and whilst that has been in storage I bought AVI ADMs and then about 3 months later the matching sub.

Soon (hopefully about 3 weeks) I'll have the chance to compare and decide which setup goes in the lounge and which in the den, so it'll be a showdown between Cyrus XT-SE and DAC-X, Roksan Caspian pre and monobloc x 2, Monitor Audio PL100s and the AVIs.

 

[Anonymous]

WinterRacer:How about we reword the question to, do you prefer:
1. Wide bandwidth, accurate and controlled bass, flat frequency response, no phase problems around the crossover, plenty of power so that a system just gets louder rather than sounding different. Nothing added and nothing taken away.
2. Limited low bass output masked by a poorly controlled driver and mid bass hump, distortion around crossover masked by a dip in output. A clipping amplifier that makes some music sound more exciting and louder, but gives a harsh treble and (more) loss of control of the bass driver, etc.
From replies, people seem to associate smooth with option 2 and harshness with option 1. We have lots of euphemisms for distortion, like colour, warmth, but the IMHO, the attributes that people enjoy like warmth, a silky treble, etc. are attributes ascribed to a lack of distortion.
I'm not sure where the idea that accurate is bad really came from!

I think your interpretation is perhaps more presumptuous than the original post 😉

The essence of option 2 was (IMO) sound that you like and appreciate, without worrying whether it was perfect or absolutely pure.
I guess this is why valves are still popular with some.

Trust your ears not your measuring equipment, was what I read.... Or perhaps don't loose sight of why we pursue audio perfection - to enjoy music.

Now I'm aware this isn't what you read, and that's not to say you were wrong any more than I was right. You too make a valid point.

I just feel that if option 2 had all the defects you've listed then no one in their right mind would pick that!

 

[Craig M.]

"I just feel that if option 2 had all the defects you've listed then no one in their right mind would pick that!"

that would depend on whether you had really heard option 1.

 

[Mr Morph]

It's a brilliant post Chebby! I've though about the subject many times. Like most people, when I started building my hi-fi I didn't know what I wanted. I approached the situation from a slightly different point of view, because living in the next house on the left of me I have a retired BBC sound engineer who supplements his pension doing the nightclub scene by playing the electronic organ, and frequently has female singers rehearse at his house. And living in the house on the right of me I have a husband and wife team of professional musicians who teach both grand piano and violin. So I get to hear the real stuff on a regular basis whether I like it or not! There is no doubt that having these neighbours has greatly influenced the way my system ended up sounding. If I had to approximate the sound, I'd say that there's about 75% realism and 25% artistic license. Make of that what you will? I often wonder about how other people perceive instruments when they don't have the advantage of using my neighbours as a reference system?

The reason I finally stopped developing my system, was that it was making me smile a lot, and gave me great insight into recordings and musicianship. I will say that the ex BBC guy is happy with a £1000 Technics stack system he has had for well over a decade (although he admits that the Technics speakers are the weak link). To my ears, it sounds dull and lifeless. I wonder if he would be as happy with the sound it produces if he lived in my house, and heard exactly what I hear coming from the house on the right of me? Hope this has added something to this thread? As ever, it's likely to be a personal thing…

 

[WinterRacer]

ashworth_rich:I think your interpretation is perhaps more presumptuous than the original post 😉

Quite so and sorry for that. I was trying to illustrate the point that (for most people) accurate is good and that when they pursue option 2 they get option 1.

However, some people seem to equate accurate with harsh, overly bright systems and that I don't agree with!

 

[Anonymous]

WinterRacer:
ashworth_rich:I think your interpretation is perhaps more presumptuous than the original post 😉

Quite so and sorry for that. I was trying to illustrate the point that (for most people) accurate is good and that when they pursue option 2 they get option 1.

However, some people seem to equate accurate with harsh, overly bright systems and that I don't agree with!

No need to apologise!

You make a valid point, accuracy can and should be a positive thing.

As I said in an earlier post - for me, or my interpretation - was that what was in question was the unrelenting pursuit of audio nirvana and more importantly purism at all costs.

And its the "at all costs" phrase which bothers me particularly.

For example:

I bought my Quad 12L2's after an afternoon of auditioning against some decent competition, Focal, B&W and PMC. Although I liked the sound of all of the speakers, I ultimately chose the Quads due to their fantastic finish! This perhaps only made up 5-10% of my decision, but it was a factor. I'm sure this goes against the ethos of some High-Fidelity zealots, but for me it made me happier than having something significantly less attractive.

To provide some balance to the discussion and to show you that I don't follow either camp religiously - I also "invested" (not a lot mind) in some mains filtering equipment (Tacima power pack, Russ Andrews and Silverman mains cables). Now did I do this because I knew I had a mains noise issue in my house? No. Did I perform back to back comparisons of before and after to justify my purchases? No. What drove me was in fact fear. Fear of there being a problem, fear of losing some sort of quality in my system. The never-ending pursuit of audiophile happiness drove me to upgrade components "just in case" the sound quality was being tarnished by the "bad" mains fairies. Do I regret this? No. The outlay was modest and it's certainly done no harm. They even look pretty to boot! 🙂

Just my 2p - hope it helps someone.