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
128x128audiotroy
IMO the question involves greater complexity than a simple division between the two characterizations that have been suggested. As the varied responses in the following thread from a number of years ago seem to make clear:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/which-attributes-do-you-value-most

An excerpt from the OP in that thread:
Here is a list of attributes commonly valued by audiophiles, in no particular order:

1. Resolution
2. Soundstaging
3. PRaT
4. Dynamics
5. Tonal balance
6. Harmonic content
7. Accuracy
8. Coherence
9. Frequency extension
10. Scale

The list could go on and on, but you get the idea. I’m interested to hear which attributes people prioritize above others.

My response in that thread:

1)Harmonic accuracy.

Which in turn encompasses or is affected by many of the factors that have been mentioned (tonal balance, harmonic content, accuracy, clarity, resolution, coherence, lifting of veils, freedom from distortion, etc.). To me "harmonic accuracy" is the most significant determinant of how "real" the instruments sound. I realize that by lumping its contributing factors together I am begging the question :-)

2)Clean transient response.

3)Dynamic range.

4)Frequency extension.

5)Image scale.

But given a choice between the two philosophies described in the OP, I’m definitely in the camp of "trying to reproduce the absolute sound and use live music as their guide."

Regards,
-- Al

What does the word "musical" mean? Can "musical" be analytical? Is live music "musical?" Is the perception of live music analytical? When is recorded music "musical?" When is recorded music "analytical?" Can it be both?

What does the word "analytical" mean in the context of listening to the sound of music, either live or reproduced?  Is the genre of music a factor?

What are some examples of all the above?


@markalarsen
"Real is good"

What is "real" when we refer to reproduction of music in our home? Is it always "good?"
I agree with Ivan in that more money will often buy a closer approach (although still only an approach) to the "real". I also agree with Al that it has many more factors. Since I cannot afford a very close approach what's "real", I have certain sonic priorities that bring me closer to the feeling of sonic reality in reproduction.
For me, the priorities are 
1) Dynamic range
2)Coherence
3)Harmonic accuracy
4)Imaging/soundstaging.