Forum poll - How important is accurate music reproduction to you?

[steve_1979]

Most of the time number 4/3 but sometimes turning the subwoofer up loud and having a big ballsy bassy sound is good fun too which would put that into category 1/2

When I get a record player that'll have a colured sound (in a good way) so when I listen to that it'll be in category 1 or 2.

Stay in the fence steve ha

I'm a 4 for the vast majority of the time.

 

[SonofSun]

Definitely 2 for me, I want to enjoy the music and if that means a bit of coloration then so be it. I really don't like bright or forward systems, so give me the warmth.

 

[unhalfbricking]

I would say that my old system, bought in the mid-80s (NAD 3020 amp, B&W DM110 speakers) was probably a 2 -- big, easy, warm sound with a tendency to smooth out any wrinkles. My current system (see below) is more like a 3 -- more revelaing, detailed and accurate. There are elements of both which I like. The 'no-hassle' qualities of the old NAD system made me less conscious of every little gremlin and less 'picky' and self-conscious about sound quality, but the new system is more engaging and immersive and therefore ultimately far more satifsying and rewarding. The proof of the pudding is that I listen to music far more (and get more out of the experience) with my new system than my old one.

 

[Reijer]

2, sometimes 4 depending on mood and reason to listen to music.

 

[Native_bon]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same. Put that into the equation & people may be picking different numbers but their systems sound the same or picking the same number & their system sounds very different!! Just thought I throw the spanner in the works *biggrin*

 

[Frank Harvey]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same.

And this is something that isn't normally taken into account, particularly when setting up AV systems. It's all very well using the mic for an auto set up, but that approach is creating accuracy with regards to levels, distances etc. But our hearing ranges are different, and even the balance between ears may be different - someone might be down 1 or 2dB in one ear over the other (thanks BRMC) so that negates the results of the auto set up. Discs that produce test tones and phase issues can be used to balance a system using your own hearing.

 

[Frank Harvey]

How can hi-fi gear make recordings better? I'm not talking going for vinyl against CD because they will be two different mastering recordings, which is apples to oranges. How does the system itself make bad recordings sound better with the same media and with the same mastering? Your experiences.

I don't think it is a case of systems making bad recordings sound better, more that some systems are able to make better sense of some recordings, where lesser systems are not. I find this with various albums, one that springs to mind being Neil Finn's Try Whistling This. On most systems it just sounds a bit of a mess, with bloated bass and an overly warm sound. On a better system, the warm sound remains, but the the muddled, bassy mess has gone, and in its place is a remarkably good recording where everything has its own space, just as it should be. Shame it's not available on vinyl.

 

[Native_bon]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same.

And this is something that isn't normally taken into account, particularly when setting up AV systems. It's all very well using the mic for an auto set up, but that approach is creating accuracy with regards to levels, distances etc. But our hearing ranges are different, and even the balance between ears may be different - someone might be down 1 or 2dB in one ear over the other (thanks BRMC) so that negates the results of the auto set up. Discs that produce test tones and phase issues can be used to balance a system using your own hearing. 

Yes you hit nail on head. Some may even hear some frequencies more and others less. That's why hifi has to really be a personal thing. To me my system sounds warm but fast & thats all that really matters.

Oh I did try auto calibration and it just sounded very wrong to my ears.

 

[Jota180]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same.

And this is something that isn't normally taken into account, particularly when setting up AV systems. It's all very well using the mic for an auto set up, but that approach is creating accuracy with regards to levels, distances etc. But our hearing ranges are different, and even the balance between ears may be different - someone might be down 1 or 2dB in one ear over the other (thanks BRMC) so that negates the results of the auto set up. Discs that produce test tones and phase issues can be used to balance a system using your own hearing.

But that auto set up will tell you you have disfunctional hearing so that's not necessarily a bad thing as I imagine most folks wouldn't even realise their hearing isn't as good as they like to think it is!

You could do an auto set up, get a flat response then tweak it from there and see how much you have to change to get the sound you like or that works for you.

 

[Infiniteloop]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same.

And this is something that isn't normally taken into account, particularly when setting up AV systems. It's all very well using the mic for an auto set up, but that approach is creating accuracy with regards to levels, distances etc. But our hearing ranges are different, and even the balance between ears may be different - someone might be down 1 or 2dB in one ear over the other (thanks BRMC) so that negates the results of the auto set up. Discs that produce test tones and phase issues can be used to balance a system using your own hearing.

But that auto set up will tell you you have disfunctional hearing so that's not necessarily a bad thing as I imagine most folks wouldn't even realise their hearing isn't as good as they like to think it is!

You could do an auto set up, get a flat response then tweak it from there and see how much you have to change to get the sound you like or that works for you.

So you're saying you should trust some auto-set up algorithm to tell you that your hearing isn't much good and that you should be listening to the result anyway even if it sounds awful?

 

[abacus]

Get an ear test done and you will know where your ears are below par. (Its easily measured and you can take the results home)

Run the auto setup of your AV and then manually adjust the results to compensate for your ear deficiences, this way you will know that you are hearing your system at its best.

NOTE: Not everybody likes acurate sound, so if you still dont like it then just adjust it to suit. (Just remember that if you do this then when you go out to hear live music it will sound nothing like how your system sounds)

Enjoy

Bill

 

[plastic penguin]

2.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Get an ear test done and you will know where your ears are below par. (Its easily measured and you can take the results home)

Run the auto setup of your AV and then manually adjust the results to compensate for your ear deficiences, this way you will know that you are hearing your system at its best.

NOTE: Not everybody likes acurate sound, so if you still dont like it then just adjust it to suit. (Just remember that if you do this then when you go out to hear live music it will sound nothing like how your system sounds)

Enjoy

Bill

I agree with you that not everyone likes accurate sound. I have two systems, the Devialet/Focal system being very accurate and neutral and a Valve based, Unison Research/Chord/Sonus Faber system which is warm, euphonic and lush. Most guests prefer the latter.

I have two systems because I enjoy the differences between them.

 

[plastic penguin]

Get an ear test done and you will know where your ears are below par. (Its easily measured and you can take the results home)

Run the auto setup of your AV and then manually adjust the results to compensate for your ear deficiences, this way you will know that you are hearing your system at its best.

NOTE: Not everybody likes acurate sound, so if you still dont like it then just adjust it to suit. (Just remember that if you do this then when you go out to hear live music it will sound nothing like how your system sounds)

Enjoy

Bill

I agree with you that not everyone likes accurate sound.

Really? knew I was missing something fundamental. I'll have my ears checked at the earliest opportunity and change my whole system and buy a 10ks worth of set-up to hear subtle differences.

More seriously, some people just like a sound that appeals - if it means stuffing accuracy up your mains flex then so be it.

 

[Native_bon]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same.

And this is something that isn't normally taken into account, particularly when setting up AV systems. It's all very well using the mic for an auto set up, but that approach is creating accuracy with regards to levels, distances etc. But our hearing ranges are different, and even the balance between ears may be different - someone might be down 1 or 2dB in one ear over the other (thanks BRMC) so that negates the results of the auto set up. Discs that produce test tones and phase issues can be used to balance a system using your own hearing.?

But that auto set up will tell you you have disfunctional hearing so that's not necessarily a bad thing as I imagine most folks wouldn't even realise their hearing isn't as good as they like to think it is!?

You could do an auto set up, get a flat response then tweak it from there and see how much you have to change to get the sound you like or that works for you.

Check out video on forum cable poll, tells you av amps room measurements are nothing to write home about. I kind of new that anyway.

 

[ID.]

Get an ear test done and you will know where your ears are below par. (Its easily measured and you can take the results home)

Run the auto setup of your AV and then manually adjust the results to compensate for your ear deficiences, this way you will know that you are hearing your system at its best.

NOTE: Not everybody likes acurate sound, so if you still dont like it then just adjust it to suit. (Just remember that if you do this then when you go out to hear live music it will sound nothing like how your system sounds)

Enjoy

Bill

I agree with you that not everyone likes accurate sound.

Really? knew I was missing something fundamental. I'll have my ears checked at the earliest opportunity and change my whole system and buy a 10ks worth of set-up to hear subtle differences.

More seriously, some people just like a sound that appeals - if it means stuffing accuracy up your mains flex then so be it.

one of the problems with these threads is that people who aren't interested in measurements, etc. sometimes seem to take it personally and reinterpret the question or a discussion of accuracy as being an attack on their own systems. I honestly don't think the difference is so big, and even when we talk about inaccuracies it's not like the system is completely useless, it is mildly less accurate. It's like the difference when the media uses a graph where they don't set the y axis at zero to make it seem like a massive difference when it would be more accurate to start the y a is at zero to show that it's a more subtle difference.

It's not as if you're going to turn up to a live show, listen to the singer and think, who's this joker they've replaced their singer with? You'll still recognize the voice.

Having said that, this is a hobby (disease?) where we are often striving, and paying good money for, relatively subtle differences that can make a day and night difference to how we enjoy our systems.

Some do it by pursuing greater accuracy. Others who don't shouldn't take it as a complete write off of their own systems. It does not conversely mean that their systems are totally inaccurate. We're not normally dealing with an either/or situation as there's no such thing as a perfect system.

 

[Vladimir]

Here are the results so far. The dots next to the X marks means I counted twice to be sure.

Those that voted two options I counted two votes. I put Steve the sub maniac for 1 and 4, I hope he agrees. Voting 4 times is a bit excesive and would mean a null (same as not voting).

I didn't take into consideration who has valves, vinyl, SS, DAC whatever. All that matters is what you aspire to.

I only look at the numbers. If you were descriptive and didn't put a number, I didn't count it.

Now, how do we interpret this?

 

[iQ Speakers]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same. Put that into the equation & people may be picking different numbers but their systems sound the same or picking the same number & their system sounds very different!! Just thought I throw the spanner in the works *biggrin*

Very astute answer. Sound should be judged by enjoyment. Telling others how good it should be tempered with how good it is in relation to other similar priced or more expensive systems and how much exposure or experience you have of other systems.

 

[ID.]

Here are the results so far. The dots next to the X marks means I counted twice to be sure.

Those that voted two options I counted two votes. I put Steve the sub maniac for 1 and 4, I hope he agrees. Voting 4 times is a bit excesive and would mean a null (same as not voting).

I didn't take into consideration who has valves, vinyl, SS, DAC whatever. All that matters is what you aspire to.

I only look at the numbers. If you were descriptive and didn't put a number, I didn't count it.

Now, how do we interpret this?

That we all generally want accuracy which we can then tweak with cables of various flavours until we reach a happy compromise?

 

[plastic penguin]

Here are the results so far. The dots next to the X marks means I counted twice to be sure.

Those that voted two options I counted two votes. I put Steve the sub maniac for 1 and 4, I hope he agrees. Voting 4 times is a bit excesive and would mean a null (same as not voting).

I didn't take into consideration who has valves, vinyl, SS, DAC whatever. All that matters is what you aspire to.

I only look at the numbers. If you were descriptive and didn't put a number, I didn't count it.

Now, how do we interpret this?

That we all generally want accuracy which we can then tweak with cables of various flavours until we reach a happy compromise?

That's about the size of the hobby/interest/obligation... call it whichever phrase takes your fancy.

 

[Vladimir]

One thing not mentioned here, not everyone's hearing is the same. Put that into the equation & people may be picking different numbers but their systems sound the same or picking the same number & their system sounds very different!! Just thought I throw the spanner in the works *biggrin*

Very astute answer. Sound should be judged by enjoyment. Telling others how good it should be tempered with how good it is in relation to other similar priced or more expensive systems and how much exposure or experience you have of other systems.

In thast case Apple earbuds are high end because teenagers love them. Hormonal hurricane.

 

[steve_1979]

Here are the results so far. The dots next to the X marks means I counted twice to be sure.

Those that voted two options I counted two votes. I put Steve the sub maniac for 1 and 4, I hope he agrees. Voting 4 times is a bit excesive and would mean a null (same as not voting).

I didn't take into consideration who has valves, vinyl, SS, DAC whatever. All that matters is what you aspire to.

I only look at the numbers. If you were descriptive and didn't put a number, I didn't count it.

Now, how do we interpret this?

Put me down as a 4 please.

 

[JMacMan]

4.

As in the closest approach to the original sound, the original and surely still the raison de etre for a hifi systems existence.

By original sound, I defer to B&O's definition of the term with respect to the original sound as heard by the recording engineer when it comes to domestic replay systems.

Cheers

John.

 

[Coll]

Will interesting to see which op amp I like best in the Nord NC500

 

[Vladimir]