High definition vs. tonal balance


After many, many years as an audiophile, I’ve come to a conclusion that a goal of tonal balance is far more rewarding and less crazy producing than the quest for greater and greater definition.
Of course, both together is Nirvana.  But so many audiophiles go awry in the holy quest for lucidity.
Years ago I had a system that was far less defined than the system I have today. But, tonally, it was in perfect balance.  A violin sounded like a violin, an oboe like an oboe, a trumpet like a trumpet, you get the idea.  But, it was lacking in those elusive fine points of definition that I thought I needed.
Then began a many year’s quest to find the right component, wire, fuse, what have you to get the sharpest picture I could attain.  Trouble is, I would improve one aspect at the expense of another.  More piling on of fixes and I couldn’t get to the place of happiness I had before I started.
Finally, probably by luck and after thousands of dollars I’ve reached the point of content I was at several years ago.
Maybe my system is better defined now, but it also has achieved that synergy.
My point is, was it worth the torture?



128x128rvpiano
You add resolution with source, electronics and cables, and of course with power management.

Are we saying speakers need not resolve?
RV, I agree with you and some of the others who consider tonality and timbre to be the most important of the various sonic traits that can be attributed to a system. And I agree that those are the keys to making "a violin sound like a violin, an oboe like an oboe, a trumpet like a trumpet," etc.

But the difficulty, as I see it, is that many things contribute to perceived tonality and timbre, while at the same time contributing to "definition." Including frequency response flatness, harmonic content, numerous forms of distortion, coherence, transient response, and yes (as Messrs. Rodman and David_Ten alluded to), clarity, resolution, and transparency.

As is usual in audio, there are no easy answers. But if I were to attempt to translate the ability of a system to reproduce realistic tonality and timbre into just a couple of words that encompass many of these other terms, and that are somewhat more hardware-related, I would say that first and foremost is "harmonic accuracy."

The following thread from 2010 may be of interest:

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

Best regards,

-- Al


I agree with the OP, with data to back it up. My view is that "definition" is artificial, and deliberately enhanced.


It often happens in the frequency response curves. By using relatively tight peaks and valleys of frequency response, a speaker can bring out certain details that an actually neutral speaker would not, but at the same time, it would do so at the expense of other notes.


I have written quite a bit about the "Stereophile curve" here:

https://speakermakersjourney.blogspot.com/2016/05/stereophile-reviews-data-doesnt-lie.html

But as always, you should buy what you like, and enjoy. Whether something is objectively neutral or not is not an absolute marker of value. I just know what neutral is and I personally really like it.


There's a different kind of definition, which when executed well is just neutral you can hear through. This happens through excellent room acoustics, and a speaker to match well with it.


Best,

E
Post removed