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
Roy, 

A good sound system's job is to accurately reproduce the recording which in itself is a snapshot in time.

You have absolutetly no idea what the original recording sounded like you can only imagine what it would sound like if you were there.

As to deeper meaning there isn't any. If the reproduced sound moves you then it has deeper meaning for you. 

One personas nirvanaha is another persons hell. 

Everyone responds to stimuli differently, if you are in a good mood that system could sound wonderful if you are in a poor one you may not respond favorably. Art and beauty and meaning are all open to interpretation. 

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ
@audiotroy 

I'm usually with you on your posts, however this one has me searching for meaning... : )

As to deeper meaning there isn't any.

Is this nihilism?  

You have absolutetly no idea what the original recording sounded like

I imagine some do. I of course do not know if @royj   was present at the recording session, but the sentence comes across as personal. Did you mean "WE" as in most of us?

@royj  I enjoyed your post. Good stuff!
Yes if Royj was at the session then he can use that session as a barometer.

The reality is we have  no idea of what a John Coltrane performance was actually sounding like unless we were there. 

Many mastering engineers can alter tonal balance, add echo and reverb and change the actual taped performance to make a recording sound good as a finished product. 

Not all recording and mastering engineers belive in a more hands off approach. 

Again if that particular performance moved Royj great for Royj that doesn't mean another listener will find that same sound to be as good.

We set up a Naim system with ATC SCM 40 on a Naim NAC 272, 250dr, XPS system with Isotek power conditioning, all high performance cabling, and the sound was very realistic, with an excellent sense of image width depth, clarity and dynamics. The top end was very clear.

We played Beatles a Hard Days Night and it sounded like a great 60's recording, with a tad bit of brittleness on top, went to Black Sabath and it was spooky. Played some more modern recordings and the sound was more refined. 

The point is the Beatles recording sounded like a recording from its time, the slight hardness was in the recording. and the system accurately conveyed that, if you don't like reality a system such as this one might not be to your tastes, YMMV

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ


"We set up a Naim system with ATC SCM 40 on a Naim NAC 272, 250dr, XPS system with Isotek power conditioning, all high performance cabling, and the sound was very realistic, with an excellent sense of image width depth, clarity and dynamics. The top end was very clear.

We played Beatles a Hard Days Night and it sounded like a great 60's recording, with a tad bit of brittleness on top, went to Black Sabath and it was spooky. Played some more modern recordings and the sound was more refined.

The point is the Beatles recording sounded like a recording from its time, the slight hardness was in the recording. and the system accurately conveyed that, if you don't like reality a system such as this one might not be to your tastes, YMMV"

Using your words, how can you know since you weren't at the recording.  

Hearing is personal, so as you say "One personas nirvanaha is another persons hell."  Based on that, maybe you should not be so absolute and just say to YOUR EARS.......this is how something sounded.  Maybe not even write down what gear you used that you sell.  it's just a thought Dave, that's all. Nothing more than that.

Bottom line is that the question may make folks think, but in teh end, it's irrelevant as we like what we like and don't like what we don't like.  It's personal and maybe factors change constantly.  

I used to spend a ton of time recording in a studio.  I know what my interpretation was, but that also differed from others. etc...  A good friend of mine owns a store in Houston and he spent many of his years recording for some of the greats in the industry.  He has plenty of reels of 'live recordings' that he can call on.  It still comes down to what moves us and who doesn't.  
@audiotroy
"One personas nirvanaha is another persons hell."

Correction: One personas (sic) nirvahahaha is another person (’) s hell."

Sounds as if you are referring to audiophile ceilings and floors, but I could be wrong. Maybe it’s an "either or" kind of situation, depending on the number of personas. Lots of variables, though.
Personally, I know I’m on to something if my toes are tapping, which is, of course, one of the most important principles of Dahn Yoga.